# Washington Post Reports



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

The Post yesterday reported Haaland is recommending that Biden restore both monuments with "full protections". I didn't see it till this morning as I was fishing Kokes yesterday, but gotta say I love it. Of course, Cox and our Congressional delegation will be disappointed, but most see this as rescinding an illegal attempt by a corrupt previous administration to destroy Obama's legacy. Ain't gonna happen. To quote the Beatles, "I got to admit it's getting better, a little better, all the the time".


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

So .......when Clinton did it to begin with, that was totally legal ??

I know what you will say......ANY thing Republican is illegal and corrupt.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

2full said:


> So .......when Clinton did it to begin with, that was totally legal ??
> 
> I know what you will say......ANY thing Republican is illegal and corrupt.


Are you saying that Clinton acted illegally regarding GS? "Are you sure about that?" Atticus Finch.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Feds need to leave the land to the state that its in. Let that state determine what will happen to the lands and manage it themselves.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Feds need to leave the land to the state that its in. Let that state determine what will happen to the lands and manage it themselves.


Yeah, just because it's federal land and belongs to all Americans, past, present and future. I don't follow your "logic".


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

State jurisdiction. If the park, monument, etc. is inside Utah boundaries, let the state determine what that parcel, area size will be and Utah manages the land. Jurisdictional rights trump Fed rights IMO.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

While I understand the need and desire to protect historic artifacts in Bears Ears, Obama could have done that at a much smaller and targeted scale instead of adding 1,000s of acres as a buffer, or whatever they want to call it. As I see it, the monument, as passed by Obama, was a land grab and over reach. Trump’s shrinking to the current size protects the artifacts where needed but doesn’t impose additional restrictions on the remainder in question. It’s already federal land and protected - just not to the scale of a national monument. That should be good enough.

Administrations on both sides have abused the Antiquities Act far too much and far to often. You want to pass a national monument or wilderness area? Go thru Congress. Presidents being able to simply make monuments through executive order bypassing Congress is a farce and should be treated as such.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MWScott72 said:


> Administrations on both sides have abused the Antiquities Act far too much and far to often. You want to pass a national monument or wilderness area? Go thru Congress. Presidents being able to simply make monuments through executive order bypassing Congress is a farce and should be treated as such.


(Insert slow clap gif here)


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> State jurisdiction. If the park, monument, etc. is inside Utah boundaries, let the state determine what that parcel, area size will be and Utah manages the land. Jurisdictional rights trump Fed rights IMO.


Yes, and your opinion is totally without any justification and contrary to the law. But that's okay, just because you feel something trumps everything else. See what I did there?



MWScott72 said:


> While I understand the need and desire to protect historic artifacts in Bears Ears, Obama could have done that at a much smaller and targeted scale instead of adding 1,000s of acres as a buffer, or whatever they want to call it. As I see it, the monument, as passed by Obama, was a land grab and over reach. Trump’s shrinking to the current size protects the artifacts where needed but doesn’t impose additional restrictions on the remainder in question. It’s already federal land and protected - just not to the scale of a national monument. That should be good enough.
> 
> *Administrations on both sides have abused the Antiquities Act far too much and far to often. You want to pass a national monument or wilderness area? Go thru Congress. Presidents being able to simply make monuments through executive order bypassing Congress is a farce and should be treated as such.*


This posts reveals a complete lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the Antiquities Act, why it was passed and why it remains necessary to this day. 

Boy, there is some real ignorance on display here.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I think we can all agree that this just opens the door to more law suites. Should be interesting.
Meanwhile is there some positive news on funding? Or is this just included in the massive infrastructure bill?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

middlefork said:


> I think we can all agree that this just opens the door to more law suites. Should be interesting.
> Meanwhile is there some positive news on funding? Or is this just included in the massive infrastructure bill?


We don't all agree. There is no basis for litigation over Biden exercising the powers granted to him by Congress under the Antiquities Act.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

middlefork said:


> I think we can all agree that this just opens the door to more law suites. Should be interesting.
> Meanwhile is there some positive news on funding? Or is this just included in the massive infrastructure bill?


I have no doubt someone might try but I don't see them getting far unless the new declaration doesn't follow the regular process. I would wager it would be a waste of time and money.

The only real way to change the outcome is to amend the Antiquities Act which won't pass muster for at least another 3 years. I would be fine editing the language on size to be more explicit buy wouldn't support removing the executive power in totality. If anything, given our broken Congress, we need that power but I recognize it needs to be significantly restrained in scope of the landscape consumed by designations. 

I think the real yo-yo here is the hyper-partisanship and negative partisanship it will add fuel to. Those flames are hot enough and I assume (wrongly?) that there is an upper limit in that antagonism that ends with unfortunate political consequences. I've been paying attention to Phil Lyman's pages and he seems consumed by other duties/desires and not mentioning this much. Hopefully that means my concerns aren't necessary and folks have moved on?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Maybe we should just change their names from national monuments to "presidential monuments" on new monuments since there is nothing national anymore about their designation.

Paddler- I know enough about the AA to recognize that it's being abused beyond original intent. When a monument is the size of a national forest, something is amiss.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Actually BENM had favorable national support in a politically divided country. Support was upwards of 55% compared to 30-40% when Utahns are polled. If anything that shows it's still a "nationally" favored tool despite local opposition. I think that local buy-in is key and ignoring it makes designations unsustainable BUT let's not conflate the two divisions.

And when we look at polling about reduction the support to maintain original size actually exceeds the popularity of the designation itself. People, nationally and regionally, reject the reduction scheme.

The entire situation is FUBAR but we can't look at facts and conclude that these monuments aren't nationally popular and loved. And the longer they are around the more support they seem to garner as they become part of our heritage. There is a reason many of these lands were put in federal stewardship.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You can't go by polls. I can construct a poll and just by the way that I word a question I can get a 75% or greater approval rate of the question. 

As for the size, the western states are the only ones that they can do that with. Everything east of the Continental Divide is too heavily populated and private to do it. So it is easier to grab the land out west than elsewhere. 

But I also agree that the size of them should be limited and that they will end up being a monument to the President who drew the lines and signed his name to create them.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Issue polling isn't without it's flaws and limitations but they do provide us a lens to generally assess trends, which change over time. There are pollsters who are hacks or don't disguise their bias but plenty of quality organizations, like PEW, do a thoughtful job of conducting polls. Decision making shouldn't be based solely by polls but they can be very informative and helpful for gauging sentiments.

And the difference between opposition to reduction compared to support of initial designation exposes a lot of how we as a nation value even controversial monuments and incorporate them into our heritage. That is now true for BENM as it was for GSENM before it and so and so on.

And I dare say the notion that we should reduce executive powers, or at least constrain the scope of designations as even I believe, is a minority view in the US with an uphill battle ahead of it without one party controll of the federal government. And one party control doesn't lend itself to sustainable outcomes as we are currently seeing.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Post was removed, it was off subject

Critter


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I am stepping in here before this goes much further. 

If you want to discuss Bears Ears and Grand Staircase then go ahead with the discussion. 

But if you want to start talking about the political parties of the US or other subjects you better go to another forum.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

This thread is a continuation of a thread that got closed. I thought we had a forum rule about this kind of thing...

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If it stays on subject I'll leave it open. 

But as soon as I see it moving in any direction other than the subject I'll close it.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It would be great if the administration took the recommendation and designated the monument to the size of the UPLI standards. It would inevitably disappoint some to the left but could be a major truce and ultimately increase the current size by more than 800k acres. It would help deescalate tensions and still manage to protect most of the original area. 

Imperfect but it could ultimately interrupt the near constant fighting over the area.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> It would be great if the administration took the recommendation and designated the monument to the size of the UPLI standards. It would inevitably disappoint some to the left but could be a major truce and ultimately increase the current size by more than 800k acres. It would help deescalate tensions and still manage to protect most of the original area.
> 
> Imperfect but it could ultimately interrupt the near constant fighting over the area.


Yes, I think many who believe in conservation would have problems with Bishop's UPLI. From the Wiki:

On July 13, 2016 Utah Representative Rob Bishop unveiled a draft legislation entitled Utah Public Lands Initiative Act (UPLI), a bill to "provide greater conservation, recreation, economic development and local management of Federal lands in Utah, and for other purposes".[61] Bishop's UPLI draft bill provided protections for 1,100,000 acres (450,000 ha) through several smaller wilderness areas and two national conservation areas.[62] According to a December 29, 2016 _The New York Times_ article, Bishop, who is among those most critical of the Antiquities Act,[63] opposes the designation of the Bears Ears National Monument. He supports repealing or shrinking the designation.[63][64][65] Following the release of the draft, the BEITC pulled out of discussions citing that it was inadequate and a scaled-down version of their original plan.[62] The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance called Bishop's July 2016 UPLI the *"worst piece of wilderness legislation that’s been introduced in Congress since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act." In 2016, the SUWA stated that the UPLI "promote[d] fossil fuel development, motorized recreation, and control of public resources by the State of Utah, and include[d] unprecedented provisions that would limit federal land managers’ ability to manage public lands for the protection of natural and cultural resources".*[20] 

And a link to the history:









Bears Ears National Monument - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Op Ed in the Trib today says that 74% of Utah voters favor restoring the monuments. It doesn't appear that UWN members reflect the view of Utah as a whole. I imagine a poll of voters across the country would show even stronger support.


----------

