# New Monuments - actually done properly



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46317537

While I will need to study this a bit more to see if I'm on board with the legislation, I can at least say that THIS is how a national monument should have to come into existence. I at least can't complain about the process.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It all sounded intriguing until I came to this. 

From the linked article.

"The bill also would transfer nearly 100,000 acres to the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration."


Ugh. So 100,000 acres would go from being public land to being, as we have discussed ad nauseum here, technically non public land. That's a lot of acreage too. Sounds like a backdoor land grab to me. It also reinforces my longtime assertion that lands won by the state from the Feds will either largely become SITLA land or be dealt with, using SITLA as a model. In either case, public access is the loser.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That’s the trade off, right? Again, I need to study this in more detail. Where are these 100k acres? Where exactly is the wilderness designation, and what impacts does that have on access. Yes, I know wilderness designation does not close things, but in practicality, it does for some people. 

Lots of questions to be asked still on my end, but this is the model if you want to do this. Not how we’ve seen before.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Sounds like a "land grab!" Isn't that ironic...and, no, I don't think this is how it is supposed to be done! The model should never include taking land from the public and then, down the line, selling it to the highest bidder. That, should NEVER be the process!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I for one think we should just make the entire state a monument and be done with it. 

Good grief.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Bax* said:


> I for one think we should just make the entire state a monument and be done with it.
> 
> Good grief.


That would be better than giving up our public lands...that is a lose for sure! At least if the whole state were a monument, we could still recreate on the land!

The argument all along has been that we don't want to lose public land. Why should that change? Like I said, it is so ironic that the republicans fought the designations under the guise that it was a land grab and what do they do? Go out and design a bill that specifically grabs land...

...the other thing that worries me is that amount of off-road vehicle use is allowed. Is the land wilderness or not?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Ugh. So 100,000 acres would go from being public land to being, as we have discussed ad nauseum here, technically non public land. That's a lot of acreage too. Sounds like a backdoor land grab to me.


Just more pristine land for Lyman Family Farms and Jo Hunt to gobble up, then fence out the public.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The 100,000 acres were almost a side-note. What acreage and where? This is an interesting way to exclude the public access on public lands by making it- a park/monument, wilderness, or giving it to a private entity. (And SITLA is a private entity in every way except for the money which goes to a public slush fund)

..


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Two additional comments on this.

1. This legislation would certainly seem to refute the assertion by Utah politicians that land won from the Feds would remain public. (again reminding the reader that SITLA lands are not technically public and could/will be subject to being sold.)

2.


Vanilla said:


> Where are these 100k acres?


Does it matter? These lands may not have 4 point bucks behind every juniper, but they could provide recreation for ATVers, fossil collectors, hikers, campers, and especially be on *access* to more important recreation areas. Ask San Juan county and Lyman family farms about that.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

One really only need to know who's behind the legislation to know it's intent. "Utah politicians" says it all. They should have left BE and GS alone.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sounds like a "land grab!" Isn't that ironic...and, no, I don't think this is how it is supposed to be done! The model should never include taking land from the public and then, down the line, selling it to the highest bidder. That, should NEVER be the process!


C'mon man! The "land grab" is not the process, it's the result. Sometimes I seriously wonder how people come up with this stuff. You're smarter than this, w2u.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> 2.
> 
> Does it matter? These lands may not have 4 point bucks behind every juniper, but they could provide recreation for ATVers, fossil collectors, hikers, campers, and especially be on *access* to more important recreation areas. Ask San Juan county and Lyman family farms about that.


Yes, it very much does matter. Because in any of these discussions, there are really no absolutes. The details matter. Or at least they should.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Yes, it very much does matter. Because in any of these discussions, there are really no absolutes. The details matter. Or at least they should.


In one perspective, I will agree with this point. I strongly suspect that the 100,000 acres are the *real* reason for this proposed legislation. The Pols figure if they boldly feature agreeing to some wilderness designations and "accept" a new National Monument (something that it sounds like they actually want) that the 100, 000 acre transfer (grab-O,-) can be hidden in the details. The net result seems to be protections that could very well happen anyway with the next liberal administration and the state sneakily nabs 100,000 acres.

In regards to am I in favor of adding a new monument and some wilderness protection in exchange for 100,000 acres, the answer to me is no and it *doesn't* matter where the targeted lost land is.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t know if I’m in favor of the RESULT of this either, as I’ve already stated. But that wasn’t the point of my post ever anyway.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, explain to me again what the process was? Because, frankly, I don't see how this process was any more open or transparent (has the public been involved? Have you heard of this prior to these news stories?) than what Clinton or Obama did. But, you might persuade me...

...isn't the process will give you some quasi-wilderness if we can have 100,000 acres?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You really don’t understand the difference between a process and a result? Or are you just being difficult? I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just having a minor brain fart and not being a butt head. 

I’m not even referring to open or transparent either. These things should go through Congress. Hence, the process, not the result. 

Still not sure if I support the result. There are way too many unknowns, such as the question I asked before about where are the 100k acres, etc. When I know all the actual details, I can make an educated decision. But if others want to simply pick sides before they even know, that seems to be how things work these days, so be my guest. I’ll prefer to become educated on the details and use the cranium God blessed me with, though. I may very well end up not liking it, but I’m not going to assume I will when I don’t know.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> You really don't understand the difference between a process and a result? Or are you just being difficult? I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just having a minor brain fart and not being a butt head.
> 
> I'm not even referring to open or transparent either. These things should go through Congress. Hence, the process, not the result.
> 
> Still not sure if I support the result. There are way too many unknowns, such as the question I asked before about where are the 100k acres, etc. When I know all the actual details, I can make an educated decision. But if others want to simply pick sides before they even know, that seems to be how things work these days, so be my guest. I'll prefer to become educated on the details and use the cranium God blessed me with, though. I may very well end up not liking it, but I'm not going to assume I will when I don't know.


It's not about picking sides, V, it's about 100K acres of now public land going to SITLA as part of the bargain. In fact, as the OP, I'm surprised you apparently missed that detail.;-) The process is that our Republican congressional representatives have introduced legislation to transfer public land to a private entity. The result would be a land grab. I think that's enough detail. Nice try soft pedaling, though, your attempts at obfuscation are your typical approach. It appears you use your cranium mostly to keep your ears apart.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> That would be better than giving up our public lands...that is a lose for sure! At least if the whole state were a monument, we could still recreate on the land!
> 
> The argument all along has been that we don't want to lose public land. Why should that change? Like I said, it is so ironic that the republicans fought the designations under the guise that it was a land grab and what do they do? Go out and design a bill that specifically grabs land...
> 
> ...the other thing that worries me is that amount of off-road vehicle use is allowed. Is the land wilderness or not?


Do as I say, not as I do right?

Hypocrisy knows no bounds in politics.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> It's not about picking sides, V, it's about 100K acres of now public land going to SITLA as part of the bargain. In fact, as the OP, I'm surprised you apparently missed that detail.;-) The process is that our Republican congressional representatives have introduced legislation to transfer public land to a private entity. The result would be a land grab. I think that's enough detail. Nice try soft pedaling, though, your attempts at obfuscation are your typical approach. It appears you use your cranium mostly to keep your ears apart.


Case in point to Vanilla's post...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Case in point to Vanilla's post...


Exactly. But not surprising in the least.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> It's not about picking sides,


Everything is about picking sides for you. Everything. You haven't had an original thought in years.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Everything is about picking sides for you. Everything. You haven't had an original thought in years.


I just wonder, V, if you were aware of the proposed transfer of 100K acres of public land to SITLA when you started this thread. You linked the article, which isn't that long, so it was hard to miss. Yet, you chose a title that indicates support of the legislation, or at least the "process". A more complete discussion of monument designations would include that the Antiquities Act was enacted precisely because the legislative process failed miserably to protect our antiquities. S, I challenge the assertion in the title of this thread.

To say that our Utah politicians' introduction of a land grab bill is superior to a President exercising his power under the Antiquities Act to designate monuments is to endorse a process by which locals can attempt to assert local control over federal lands in order to enable exploitation by their cronies. Is that your position? Do you think this legislation is the best way to manage our public lands? Which is better, to leave public lands under federal control or to give those lands to a private entity required to maximize revenue by any means possible from said lands? Should we trust SITLA to allow public access to those lands in perpetuity? Whaddayathink?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes, I knew the 100k acres was part of this legislation when I posted this. I do know how to read. I can’t say that I’m sure you can say the same, however. My first post, the original of the thread, answers every one of your other allegations, pontifications about my belief, and insincere questions. And it actually does it very clearly.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Yes, I knew the 100k acres was part of this legislation when I posted this. I do know how to read. I can't say that I'm sure you can say the same, however. My first post, the original of the thread, answers every one of your other allegations, pontifications about my belief, and insincere questions. And it actually does it very clearly.


This is your last post:

_Still not sure if I support the result. There are way too many unknowns, such as the question I asked before about where are the 100k acres, etc. When I know all the actual details, I can make an educated decision. But if others want to simply pick sides before they even know, that seems to be how things work these days, so be my guest. I'll prefer to become educated on the details and use the cranium God blessed me with, though. I may very well end up not liking it, but I'm not going to assume I will when I don't know._

You have not answered my questions, not clearly or otherwise. Do you support transferring federal lands to SITLA? Yes or no? Most others on this board don't seem keen on the idea.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> A more complete discussion of monument designations would include that the Antiquities Act was enacted precisely because the legislative process failed miserably to protect our antiquities.


The legislative process did not fail miserably. The Antiques Act shows the correct process of the legislative branch. No branch of gov't can do anything properly by fiat acts of power.

A simple POLS 101 course will teach that.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> The legislative process did not fail miserably. The Antiques Act shows the correct process of the legislative branch. No branch of gov't can do anything properly by fiat acts of power.
> 
> A simple POLS 101 course will teach that.


You need a history lesson. The AA was enacted because Congress was unable to curb looting in Mesa Verde and surrounding areas.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> You really don't understand the difference between a process and a result? .


I must be dumb...because I still can't figure out how the process is really any different. With the designations of BE and the GSNM, the President used the Antiquities Act. With this new "process" repubs are using Congress. Has the public been involved in either process? Are both "processes" legal and within the political powers of those who carried the "processes" through? Yup...so, how are they different? Tell me again.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

W2U,

I have been clear in my position that I support the constitutional powers of each branch of government. These types of actions are reserved in constitutional power to Congress. That is why it took congress passing a law (the antiquities act) to delegate its authority to the executive. I am not, and have never disputed the AA gives a president certain powers, I’ve simply said I disagree with it. 

So it is my position, and the constitution’s, that if a national monument should be delegated, it SHOULD be an act of Congress to do it. Hence, the PROCESS. 

This really isn’t that difficult of a principle to understand, I think you’re just getting caught up in wanting a fight. I’ve straight up said multiple times that we may end up seeing this the same way once I can get all the details, so not really any need to argue just to argue. The process is a monument being created by legislative action. Pretty simple principle. Hope that helps clear it up.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

It doesn't matter at all who, how, for whom, to whom, by who, what agency does what, legislative, executive order, military coup, blah, blah blah...it is this simple...if you take land that is currently owned by the US Government(the people!!!) and transfer it to Sitla by any means what so ever...it will no longer be PUBLIC and most likely will be sold to and deeded into the private land pool. NO TRESPASSING!

To sit and argue about the process is ridicules.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Not to mention the sudden rush to create multiple National parks /Monuments. Keep watching this hand so you don't see my other one.
How about they just fund the ones we have already.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I realize that we are now in the mandatory insults phase of this monuments thread, but I have one question. Since part of the action sought is for a transfer of Federal land, and the Constitution requires that Congress has the sole authority over lands (disposition), isn't it *mandatory * that this legislation be pursued in this manner? If the Utah delegation tried to achieve the same ends through the Trump administration using the Antiquities act and executive order, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional. If the politicians *only* wanted a new monument at Cleveland/Lloyd, Trump would very likely give it to them in a heartbeat.

Regardless of "process", things seem to come back to the 100,000 acres.

TOTP!


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I realize that we are now in the mandatory insults phase of this monuments thread, but I have one question. Since part of the action sought is for a transfer of Federal land, and the Constitution requires that Congress has the sole authority over lands (disposition), isn't it *mandatory * that this legislation be pursued in this manner? If the Utah delegation tried to achieve the same ends through the Trump administration using the Antiquities act and executive order, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional. If the politicians *only* wanted a new monument at Cleveland/Lloyd, Trump would very likely give it to them in a heartbeat.
> 
> Regardless of "process", things seem to come back to the 100,000 acres.
> 
> TOTP!


Yes, stealing federal land requires an act of Congress. Preserving public lands only requires a President with an interest in conservation. Wish we had one.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> To sit and argue about the process is ridicules.


Except, I'm the OP. The entire purpose of the post was the process. It is others that have taken it other places. So take that up with them, not me. Of course, I do not expect that to happen. That would require actual critical thinking, and that ain't happening here.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Except, I'm the OP. The entire purpose of the post was the process. It is others that have taken it other places. So take that up with them, not me. Of course, I do not expect that to happen. That would require actual critical thinking, and that ain't happening here.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> You need a history lesson. The AA was enacted because Congress was unable to curb looting in Mesa Verde and surrounding areas.


Nope. Congress does not enforce the law, the Executive branch does. Congress writes the law, which they did with the AA.

Try to keep up. Before 1906, there wasn't much in place to protect antiquities. The AA was the first major legislative leap when the need arose and the general public became aware of the problem. Not long before that, there were still bounties paid for not just artifacts, but people parts too.

And FYI, Chaco Canyon is what lit the fire, a place a mere 50 miles from my home.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Nope. Congress does not enforce the law, the Executive branch does. Congress writes the law, which they did with the AA.
> 
> Try to keep up. Before 1906, there wasn't much in place to protect antiquities. The AA was the first major legislative leap when the need arose and the general public became aware of the problem. Not long before that, there were still bounties paid for not just artifacts, but people parts too.
> 
> And FYI, Chaco Canyon is what lit the fire, a place a mere 50 miles from my home.


I didn't say that Congress enforces the law, I said that Congress hadn't protected the antiquities in the southwest, meaning they hadn't passed legislation doing so. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps the "process" of Congress passing laws to protect all the different areas worthy of protection is too cumbersome to be practical. From the Wiki:

_The Act was intended to allow the President to set aside certain valuable public natural areas as park and conservation land. The 1906 act stated that it was intended for: "... the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest." These areas are given the title of "National Monuments." It also allows the President to reserve or accept private lands for that purpose. The aim is to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities. With this act, this can be done much more quickly than going through the Congressional process of creating a National Park._

Not only is this process quicker, but in many cases some areas may not have been protected at all. For instance, there was a great deal of local resistance to the designation of the Grand Canyon NM at the time from locals who wanted to exploit it. That's why I disagree with V that the current actions of Hatch and Curtis is the better process.

And yes, you are correct, Chaco Canyon was the final straw leading to the AA. I misspoke, don't know why I said Mesa Verde, except that they both contain ruins from prehistoric Native American peoples. I'd like to visit Chaco someday. My wife and I were talking about a road trip to MV the day before yesterday. Took delivery of a new hunting/fishing rig last week and need to put some miles on it before I can tow my boat.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler doesn’t care about the constitution? Wow, that’s a real shocker.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Usually don't get involved in these type of threads due to the inevitable vitriol that ensues. However, I do agree with the OP on his point of this being done the way it should. As to the 'results and meat and potatoes' of the bill, that's another story entirely, in MHO...

I am getting a bit senile of late, so perhaps that's what it takes to understand the simple initial point the OP was intending....;-)


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

stillhunterman said:


> Usually don't get involved in these type of threads due to the inevitable vitriol that ensues. However, I do agree with the OP on his point of this being done the way it should. As to the 'results and meat and potatoes' of the bill, that's another story entirely, in MHO...
> 
> I am getting a bit senile of late, so perhaps that's what it takes to understand the simple initial point the OP was intending....;-)


Clearly, we have a difference of opinion. Once again, the Antiquities Act was enacted by Congress, which in so doing exercised their constitutional power to pass legislation that empowers the President to protect areas described in the Act. The President then acts in the interest of all American citizens to protect the areas that qualify. In so doing, he receives input from all stakeholders and thus has a broad view of all considerations regarding any specific area. In designating BENM, Obama oversaw an lengthy, exhaustive, open process inclusive of all interest groups. While some may not agree with the designation, I believe he acted in the interests of the greater common good and all American citizens.

In contrast, Hatch and Curtis followed what process? Town halls? Meetings with all interested parties? Conservation groups, including national groups? Outdoor recreation groups? Hunting and fishing interests? Introducing land grab bills like this do not serve the interests of all Americans, it serves SITLA and those who would benefit from the land transfer. This is to be expected when local politicians act on behalf of their donors, as only local politicians will introduce such bills, and only at the behest of their donors. It may sound like a more inclusive process, but that is not the case. Most locals won't benefit from the current bill, outdoorsmen don't benefit, visitors from around the country and the world don't benefit, local tourism businesses don't benefit, you and I don't benefit.

So again, I disagree that this process which favors a few interested in exploitation is superior to the President exercising the powers delegated to him under the Antiquities Act. Anybody who says different is selling something.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So I was looking over a draft of this bill. It was not the final product, and I haven’t compared it to the final product yet. But if I’m reading this correctly, the 100k acres is more of a land trade than a land grab. I want to see the final bill and study it more closely to be sure, but it appears that the 100k acres is making up for SITLA land already held within the new monuments and wilderness areas being designated by this bill. They would be swapping other federal land to make up for making the current SITLA land useless. So potentially not a single lost acre from “public land” in this? I don’t know, still trying to figure out the nitty gritty here. 

Standby, lots to process and learn here still. But if that ends up being the case, I’ll be happy with myself for waiting for details before complaining about something I don’t understand. Still not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing yet. Hopefully more information is forthcoming so I can make an educated decision.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> So I was looking over a draft of this bill. It was not the final product, and I haven't compared it to the final product yet. But if I'm reading this correctly, the 100k acres is more of a land trade than a land grab. I want to see the final bill and study it more closely to be sure, but it appears that the 100k acres is making up for SITLA land already held within the new monuments and wilderness areas being designated by this bill. They would be swapping other federal land to make up for making the current SITLA land useless. So potentially not a single lost acre from "public land" in this? I don't know, still trying to figure out the nitty gritty here.


IF (big IF) this is a land swap, that would be entirely different. It may or may not be helpful to recreation and public use, but a lot of these are actually favorable. So yeah, I guess we all will stay tuned. In fairness to many of our comments though, all the news outlets said nothing about a swap and reported it as a transfer. It is a pretty large difference that one would hope the reporter would not screw up.

Finally, a land swap would also be required to be approved by Congress, so special applause for Hatch and Curtis for the "Process" of the bill are still probably not needed. 

Another TOTP!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Life is much easier when you reserve judgment until you know all the details. That is a universal principle, by the way. You have to spend way less time justifying why you were wrong in the end if you follow this practice. Believe me, I’ve learned that through many lessons of being on the other side. 

Not having a team I owe undying loyalty to in politics sure makes it easier in political discussions like this. But again, this principle goes way beyond public lands and politics. 

If anything good can come from this thread, maybe that will be it. Maybe not. Probably not. But I’m a dreamer.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

If this bill passes and in so doing creates inholdings, AFAIK it's pretty routine to swap them for other properties. Color me skeptical, though, as I haven't seen anything done by our local politicians that protects public lands. Here's a recent example:

https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/HJR001.html


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The more I learn about this bill, the more I’m seeing that there will be many on this thread with egg on their face. Like I said, it’s better to educate yourself on the details before coming out and attacking someone that had yet to even take a position. Details are important, after all. 

Interesting to see that the Conservation Alliance and Outdoor Industry Association (remember them?) are involved and appear to be supporters of the legislative efforts here. Maybe there are more stakeholders involved than some here are giving credit? 

I still want to know more details about the wilderness designations. Info is not easy to dig up so far on this.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Did you look at the map? It looks like the wilderness designation incorporates the current wilderness study areas.
I guess it will make a difference depending on if they still allow the travel corridors


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I have not been able to get a good map. The only map I’ve seen was too grainy to see anything once zoomed in. Got a link you can share?


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I don’t care are what you want to call this. It is the typical Utah political climate. Our state leaders are always trying to find a way to pull one over on the people. It is like they think so little of the people they represent they can straight out try to deceive Us


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’d be interested to hear your opinion on what they’re trying to pull over?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Hoopermat said:


> I don't care are what you want to call this. It is the typical Utah political climate. Our state leaders are always trying to find a way to pull one over on the people. It is like they think so little of the people they represent they can straight out try to deceive Us


We'll see how this plays out. Our local and national politicians have well earned a modicum of skepticism. I remember when people here were optimistic about Zinke. That was misplaced.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I have not been able to get a good map. The only map I've seen was too grainy to see anything once zoomed in. Got a link you can share?


There is a link at the bottom of the page on the ksl article. You can zoom in but just looking at it, it is easy to see that the wilderness boundaries pretty much follow the current wilderness study areas.

i'm sure there is a current travel map available for the San Rafael area that shows all the current boundaries.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Info is not easy to dig up so far on this.


This seems to describe the entire bill fairly well so far. It sounds like all of us should wait for something more concrete to dissect before making pronouncements, including who will have egg on their face. I'm still very curious why the KSL author wrote his original article as he did.

It is entirely possible that the finished bill isn't even out for release or completed by the originators?

HA, 3 TOTP in a row!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Actually, I think the draft available itself is proof of those that already have egg. It has never been about who is right or wrong for me in this, but simply that I support the process. There are multiple people that came at me very strong in this thread when they didn’t have a single clue what they were talking about. Those people look stupid now, to be quite frank. Land grabs, stealing land, attacking me because I said I want more details, personal attacks that have nothing to do with this topic or thread...it’s all here. All when I openly acknowledged that I didn’t know how I felt about the bill itself, which is looking pretty good for sportsmen actually in what I’m finding out. But still some unknowns that could sway me either way. 

Not that I expect anyone to acknowledge any of the above, but it is all here to read if anyone wants to go back and review it...so they don’t need to.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


>


nicely done 'nilla.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Since we're still on the 50 yard line with this bill, it's a bit early for anybody to spike the football. The devil is in the details. Perhaps a broader view is in order. The Jurassic monument would be 2543 acres. BFD. The other area would be 383,380 acres, while "transferring" the 100,000 acres to SITLA. Unless the NM and the conservation areas include a taking of 100,000 acres of state land by the federal government, it appears the bill will result in a net 100,000 acres transfer to SITLA. As the article didn't spell out that this would be an exchange, I'd guess that there will be a net transfer of federal land to SITLA.

Just as a reminder, our politicians worked hand in hand with Zinke to reduce federal protection of land in BE and GS by 2 million acres. So even if they pass this bill, we're still out about 1.7 million acres of federally protected land and out as much as 100,000 acres of federally owned and publicly accessible land. Cause for celebration? You decide.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That post was complete BS. First, you may want to start actually reading the language of the bill itself, and not just articles about it, if you want to be educated. Big if, I know. Further, I can spike the ball any time I want. It's clear you still have completely missed the boat on this entire thread. Easy to do when your only interest is attacking a person, and not the data. And that's all you are ever able to do.

Lastly, not a single acre of federal land has lost any amount of protection by reducing the Bears Ears National Monument. Not one spec of protection has been reduced. Just because you push that political rhetoric doesn't make it true. In fact, it patently false. That is not even up for debate or opinion, that is a verifiable, objective fact.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> That post was complete BS. First, you may want to start actually reading the language of the bill itself, and not just articles about it, if you want to be educated. Big if, I know. Further, I can spike the ball any time I want. It's clear you still have completely missed the boat on this entire thread. Easy to do when your only interest is attacking a person, and not the data. And that's all you are ever able to do.
> 
> Lastly, not a single acre of federal land has lost any amount of protection by reducing the Bears Ears National Monument. Not one spec of protection has been reduced. Just because you push that political rhetoric doesn't make it true. In fact, it patently false. That is not even up for debate or opinion, that is a verifiable, objective fact.


I'm just saying we should reserve judgement until we know more, which is I think what you've been saying. But go ahead and spike anything you like at any time you choose.

I'm confused, though, and many others should be as well. If reducing the size of our National Monuments doesn't remove protections, what's the point of a National Monument designation? Why bother? Why are people upset about it? Why are lawsuits being filed? Perhaps you could file an amicus brief explaining this to all involved. That would save everybody a lot of time, money and grief.


----------

