# Bishops Antiquities Act reform



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46106843&n...n-sense-approach-to-reforming-antiquities-act

Is this a common sense approach or too far? This effectively ends the Antiquities Act and makes it nearly impossible to simply create a National Monument. I also think the fact they need to attach authorization for the President to shrink National Monuments shows they know they don't currently have the right to shrink National Monuments that are already designated.

I personally think this bill goes too far. I think a 50,000 to 100,000 acre limit is far more of a reasonable reform. I also don't like the part in the bill that allows any future president to shrink a National Monument. At what point can something be settled? Do we really need to re-litigate everything every time we change Administrations? Sage grouse plans? Mining Bristol Bay? Oil and gas development in wildlife refuges and monuments? Can we just permanently protect some places and leave some managment plans in place?

As it currently stands I don't support Bishops reform to the Antiquities Act. Thoughts on it without getting to over the top (paddler and original Oscar).


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46106843&n...n-sense-approach-to-reforming-antiquities-act
> 
> Is this a common sense approach or too far? This effectively ends the Antiquities Act and makes it nearly impossible to simply create a National Monument. I also think the fact they need to attach authorization for the President to shrink National Monuments shows they know they don't currently have the right to shrink National Monuments that are already designated.
> 
> ...


Bishop's bill would gut the Antiquities Act. Remember that the inability of Congress to protect the antiquities in Chaco Canyon was the impetus for the Act in the first place. His bill guarantees no significant future monument designations will occur. He's in the pocket of the extractors, every breath he takes and his every waking moment is dedicated to destroying the environment. His actions throughout his career have been nothing short of despicable, his current bill is more of the same.

Also, why should Congress, with its abysmal approval rating, or local governments, many of which view the federal government with hostility, have the capability to block NM designations?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I also think the fact they need to attach authorization for the President to shrink National Monuments shows they know they don't currently have the right to shrink National Monuments that are already designated.


Oh, I don't think it's an acknowledgement of anything. It would, however, completely eliminate the litigation entirely. I think is the real intent, not so much an acknowledgement of lack of power to reduce. Just making it clear under the law, which I think we'd all prefer to litigation. It's much better for congress to say either yes or no than the courts.

The ONLY reason a president has the authority to designate a monument is because congress passed a law saying he could. What the legislature giveth, it can take away. So it was asked why congress should get to block monument designations? Well, because the separation of powers says so.

I have not read the proposal so I'm not sure how I feel, but my feelings about the Antiquities Act have been clearly stated in the past. So I view this as potentially a very good thing. Acknowledging I'm not a huge fan of Bishop, and have disliked much of his efforts regarding public lands, so I'm hesitant to be hopeful.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Oh, I don't think it's an acknowledgement of anything. It would, however, completely eliminate the litigation entirely. I think is the real intent, not so much an acknowledgement of lack of power to reduce. Just making it clear under the law, which I think we'd all prefer to litigation. It's much better for congress to say either yes or no than the courts.
> 
> The ONLY reason a president has the authority to designate a monument is because congress passed a law saying he could. What the legislature giveth, it can take away. So it was asked why congress should get to block monument designations? Well, because the separation of powers says so.
> 
> I have not read the proposal so I'm not sure how I feel, but my feelings about the Antiquities Act have been clearly stated in the past. So I view this as potentially a very good thing. Acknowledging I'm not a huge fan of Bishop, and have disliked much of his efforts regarding public lands, so I'm hesitant to be hopeful.


I agree congress has the right, I disagree the President does, but we've been down that path so let's move on. If Bishops bill passes then it will grant clear authority I agree. This bill is just like any public lands bill Bishop cooks up...bad.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I think an amendment to the Antiquities Act has been a long time coming. I am not sure what size limit would be appropriate but I think designating such massive monuments with noticeable hostility from locals is killing the long term sustainability of the designation. His limit seems ridiculously low but its probably an intentional strategy given the way bills are changed from committee to conference.

Can't support the current bill but think the conversation needs to happen at some point.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Oh, I don't think it's an acknowledgement of anything. It would, however, completely eliminate the litigation entirely. I think is the real intent, not so much an acknowledgement of lack of power to reduce. Just making it clear under the law, which I think we'd all prefer to litigation. It's much better for congress to say either yes or no than the courts.
> 
> The ONLY reason a president has the authority to designate a monument is because congress passed a law saying he could. What the legislature giveth, it can take away. So it was asked why congress should get to block monument designations? Well, because the separation of powers says so.
> 
> I have not read the proposal so I'm not sure how I feel, but my feelings about the Antiquities Act have been clearly stated in the past. So I view this as potentially a very good thing. Acknowledging I'm not a huge fan of Bishop, and have disliked much of his efforts regarding public lands, so I'm hesitant to be hopeful.


Bishop's an unrepentant, serial scalawag. His PLI went nowhere in what, three years, because it was horrible. To quote:

_*After Rep. Rob Bishop announced more than three years ago that he wanted to end public land disagreements in southern and eastern Utah with a "grand bargain," we spent countless hours working with Rep. Bishop and Rep. Jason Chaffetz-and their staff members-to try and find a compromise that would provide lasting protection for Utah's remarkable public lands. Unfortunately, the Public Lands Initiative (PLI) introduced on July 14, 2016 does not advance conservation in Utah. Instead it promotes fossil fuel development, motorized recreation, and control of public resources by the State of Utah, and includes unprecedented provisions that would limit federal land managers' ability to manage public lands for the protection of natural and cultural resources. Simply put, Rep. Bishop's PLI is the worst piece of wilderness legislation that's been introduced in Congress since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act.*_

Every single thing he's done regarding public lands has been at the bidding of his corporate donors, designed to reduce or remove protections of our public lands. Congress is completely dysfunctional, with a well-deserved subterranean approval rating. And yet you think Bishop's latest assault as "potentially a very good thing"? Really? You've failed to meet even my lowest expectations. Believe me.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Legislation to end the sheer executive abuse of the Antiquities Act we’ve seen so much through the last few administrations is a good thing, yes. I qualified it with “potentially” because I haven’t read it yet and I don’t know exactly the details being proposed. Some people actually like to read things before formulating their opinions. 

As stated, I’m no big fan of Bishop myself. I don’t trust him proabaly anymore than any of you do. So I’m not jumping in with support until I have a chance to actually review the legislation and know what the implications are. 

But yes, I’m hopeful this legislation corrects a wrong that has become our normal. If it does that, I will support it. If it is another underhanded shot at taking away public lands, I won’t. Some of us don’t care what the letter next to the sponsor’s name is as much as we do what the actual legislation says. Some of us...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Legislation to end the sheer executive abuse of the Antiquities Act we've seen so much through the last few administrations is a good thing, yes. I qualified it with "potentially" because I haven't read it yet and I don't know exactly the details being proposed. Some people actually like to read things before formulating their opinions.
> 
> As stated, I'm no big fan of Bishop myself. I don't trust him proabaly anymore than any of you do. So I'm not jumping in with support until I have a chance to actually review the legislation and know what the implications are.
> 
> But yes, I'm hopeful this legislation corrects a wrong that has become our normal. If it does that, I will support it. If it is another underhanded shot at taking away public lands, I won't. Some of us don't care what the letter next to the sponsor's name is as much as we do what the actual legislation says. Some of us...


...think that despite all evidence to the contrary over the 15 years he's been in office, of watching him try to undermine protections of public lands at every opportunity, Rob Bishop's latest legislation is being proffered in good faith. Simply delusional. Or deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You can continue to attack me personally and call me names all you want. It's nothing new, it's all you do. But it doesn't make you right. 

The legislation appears to simply address the Antiquities Act from the reports about it. If so, I'm not worried about losing or damaging public lands. I will support restoring a more balanced constitutional order of things. I have the ability to separate issues that are separate. 

If there are other parts to this bill that go more towards Bishop's MO, they will reveal themselves over time and study, and I don't have to support the legislation. It's not a particularly difficult concept, actually. 

Hilarious that I've said multiple times that I don't know if I support it or not, and you still are attacking me. Not shocking, but still hilarious. #truecolors


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Gawd don't you guys have jobs?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Some do and some don't, thanks to the "extraction" industries shutting down...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hr_3990.pdf

Here is the actual bill if anyone is interested in reading it, and not just reading about it. I've now gone through it once, but I need to go through it one more time. First reading: It definitely limits the power of the executive to do this. I like it. It does not appear to negatively impact any other public lands or public land policy. I like that too. But I need to review it again to make sure I did not miss anything.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Dunkem said:


> Gawd don't you guys have jobs?


Sure do, and a good one. Advocating for the protection of our public lands is just a hobby. I think it's important to call out our elected representatives when they threaten them on behalf of their donors. Bishop is among the worst.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Paddler and Vanilla, I was more hoping for other people’s opinions other than another back and forth between you two. We know where you both stand, where do the rest of forum members?


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Paddler and Vanilla, I was more hoping for other people's opinions other than another back and forth between you two. We know where you both stand, where do the rest of forum members?


OK, here is my take. I will admit, I did not read the bill in its entirety, but I support it as I understand it. Any designation of a monument, wilderness, etc... by a president should have to be ratified in congress IMO. Keep public lands public and reduce the power of a president to either add or remove national lands.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think that the Antiquities Act needs some clarification and reform. As it is currently constituted, it has been abused repeatedly. I say that in spite of personally being in favor of the protections afforded by monument designation, esp. regarding Bears Ears and Grand Staircase.

That said, I am not very hopeful, or in any way comforted that Rob Bishop is the guy spearheading the effort to reform the act. 

The acreage limits seem incredibly low and overly restrictive. 

Additionally, without companion legislation put in place to afford a method of protection for natural geographic features which can be equally unique as dwellings and human artifacts, I don't like the provision that disallows unique geographic features to be protected. 

While I think they should perhaps be protected through a separate act for sake of clarity, I can't support the following section without any mention of how those would be protected:

8 ‘‘(B) The term ‘object or objects of antiq-
9 uity’ does not include—
10 ‘‘(i) natural geographic features; and
11 ‘‘(ii) objects not made by humans, ex-
12 cept fossils (other than fossil fuels) or
13 human or animal skeletal remains.’’.

Also, I'm by no means an expert and am aware that there are NCA's, wilderness designations, and other methods of protection. However, it seems that many of the most important monuments we have currently contain incredibly unique geographic features, and by expressly disallowing this to be used as criterion for designation, it may inhibit similar important protections in the future.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

toasty said:


> OK, here is my take. I will admit, I did not read the bill in its entirety, but I support it as I understand it. Any designation of a monument, wilderness, etc... by a president should have to be ratified in congress IMO. Keep public lands public and reduce the power of a president to either add or remove national lands.


I don't think any national lands were added or removed from Federal government property.

They were BLM or Forest Service before and will be managed by them just with a different mandate in the future.

And without funding they won't be managed for s*** by anyone.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

middlefork said:


> I don't think any national lands were added or removed from Federal government property.
> 
> They were BLM or Forest Service before and will be managed by them just with a different mandate in the future.
> 
> And without funding they won't be managed for s*** by anyone.


Source(specific to Bears Ears since that is what spurred this):

"In addition to the approximately 1.35
million acres of Federal lands, the Bears Ears
National Monument boundary encompasses
approximately 109,100 acres of land owned
by the State of Utah and 12,600 acres owned
by private landowners. The non-Federal lands
within the national monument are not be part of
the national monument unless subsequently and
voluntarily acquired."

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/bear-ears-fact-sheet.pdf


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

toasty said:


> OK, here is my take. I will admit, I did not read the bill in its entirety, but I support it as I understand it. Any designation of a monument, wilderness, etc... by a president should have to be ratified in congress IMO. Keep public lands public and reduce the power of a president to either add or remove national lands.


I can for the most part agree with a certain acreage going through congress, although I think the acreage allowed should be larger than what Bishop is proposing. It's never good to have a guy who openly says he wants the act gone entirely to be the one spearheading a reform bill. As I said I support it going through congress, the sign off of the state Governor and county commissioners is a lot of hoops to jump through and nearly impossible in a place like Utah. It seems to me if the bill passes as is, the Antiquities Act is essentially gone.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Here's the big picture. One, there have been no "abuses" of the Act, though everyone is welcome to their opinion. I cannot think of a single designation that has had a net negative impact both locally and nationally over time. I believe the Antiquities Act should remain as it is, and our monuments shouldn't be butchered. Two, Bishop has never been and never will be a friend to outdoorsmen. Anything he says or does should be viewed with extreme skepticism, if not rejected outright.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It seems to me if the bill passes as is, the Antiquities Act is essentially gone.


Beautiful! What are we waiting for?

Oh wait, you are the only one that can give their opinion more than once. My bad, 1-Eye. My bad. I didn't mean to jump into these PMs you were having...


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Here's the big picture. One, there have been no "abuses" of the Act, though everyone is welcome to their opinion. I cannot think of a single designation that has had a net negative impact both locally and nationally over time. I believe the Antiquities Act should remain as it is, and our monuments shouldn't be butchered. Two, Bishop has never been and never will be a friend to outdoorsmen. Anything he says or does should be viewed with extreme skepticism, if not rejected outright.


"Abuses" is somewhat subjective. I generally favor the protections afforded by monuments. But to deny that the size and scope of some of the designations haven't constituted an abuse of the original intent is laughable.

I agree with you on Bishop. I don't think he should have any part in revamping the act. However, he is the chair for the house committee on Natural Resources. It's probably comfortably within his purview to address the issue, regardless of my feelings towards the man and his intentions.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Beautiful! What are we waiting for?
> 
> Oh wait, you are the only one that can give their opinion more than once. My bad, 1-Eye. My bad. I didn't mean to jump into these PMs you were having...


I have been clear that I am generally supportive of the protections afforded under monument designation. I also think the Antiquities act is a flawed piece of legislation with plenty of ambiguity that has created conflict.

If the Antiquities Act were to be done away with(literally or effectively via Bishop's Bill), do you see any potential negative ramifications? What would be the best or proper way to ensure that areas of either historical or geographic importance are preserved?

I'm not asking to be argumentative at all. Just sincerely trying to understand how the management and protection of certain sections of public land would function in lieu of the Act.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, I care about public land being preserved and available for hunting and fishing. Monument, Forest, whatever. So long as I can access it for hunting and fishing I can probably survive.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> "Abuses" is somewhat subjective. I generally favor the protections afforded by monuments. But to deny that the size and scope of some of the designations haven't constituted an abuse of the original intent is laughable.
> 
> I agree with you on Bishop. I don't think he should have any part in revamping the act. However, he is the chair for the house committee on Natural Resources. It's probably comfortably within his purview to address the issue, regardless of my feelings towards the man and his intentions.


Whether something is laughable or not is also a matter of opinion. According to court decisions on the topic, no abuses have occurred. Public opinion is srongly in favor of Bears Ears, also, fully 64% of registered Utah voters disagree with your assertion:

https://nativenewsonline.net/curren...ters-support-bears-ears-monument-designation/

Bishop is chairman, but that doesn't mean he's wise or supportive of protecting our public lands. There simply is no evidence for either throughout his tenure. I don't expect he'll wake up one day as Theodore Roosevelt incarnate. He'll remain a small minded political hack acting in his donor's best interest. Purely a functionary, devoid of intelligence or vision for the future.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Abuse: verb: use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.

I think its use by several presidents has been to "bad effect", ie caused the pushback we have seen the last couple decades. Its a very subjective idea but doesn't inherently describe the legality of the choices. I love GSENM and the area of BENM but its abuse is noticeable to me nonetheless. Others like Paddler disagree. We all gave different values and experiences to inform those conclusions.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Beautiful! What are we waiting for?
> 
> Oh wait, you are the only one that can give their opinion more than once. My bad, 1-Eye. My bad. I didn't mean to jump into these PMs you were having...


Sorry I don't simply want to see you and paddler go back and forth for 10 pages and no one else get in.

As for what are we waiting for? The Antiquities Act is an important act that has permanently protected some amazing places and was originally used to protect many of our national parks until congress finally realized how special those places were. How do you know Vanilla the same thing won't be said of current national monuments in the future? I personally don't belive in politics and social pressures being the best guiding interest forward. If we always followed that path everything we currently enjoy as public lands would be privately held. When Roosevelt created all these public lands and then the next day forbid himself from ever doing it again, people were furious. How are we today because of it? Better off IMO. Allowing current politics and social pressures to guide us instead of just protecting some places because it's right just doesn't seem right. I'm okay being inconvenienced a little to keep some places forever. You simply have an issue with the process....but is it really wrong? Let's reform the act that's done so much good over its history in a reasonable way, not do away with it, and let's turn the page from previous monuments and move on instead of constantly relitigating boundaries. I'm fine with leaving current monuments alone and reform on the act moving forward, I'm not fine with constantly rehashing every **** plan and boundary out there. It's time for some certainty on things like monument boundaries and sage grouse plans. Changing them every five minutes is exactly why public land managment sucks. It's just political football depending on the Administration that holds the White House.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Abuse: verb: use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
> 
> I think its use by several presidents has been to "bad effect", ie caused the pushback we have seen the last couple decades. Its a very subjective idea but doesn't inherently describe the legality of the choices. I love GSENM and the area of BENM but its abuse is noticeable to me nonetheless. Others like Paddler disagree. *We all gave different values and experiences to inform those conclusions.*


Precisely. I don't see preservation as abuse. I see theft of artifacts as abuse and extractive activities as more damaging, thus a bad effect, than preservation. As backcountry says, we have different values, viewpoints and experiences which shape our world view. I differ with him in that I see local pushback as an inevitable part of the process, as it began with or before Roosevelt's designation of the Grand Canyon in 1908. There has always been and always will be pushback from locals who wish to develop and exploit areas that are designated as national monuments. My view is that this is federal land, belonging to all Americans, not just locals with selfish desires. Just as a for instance, local pot hunters have long felt that artifacts all over the Southwest were theirs to dig up and sell. Nope.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> Whether something is laughable or not is also a matter of opinion. According to court decisions on the topic, no abuses have occurred. Public opinion is srongly in favor of Bears Ears, also, fully 64% of registered Utah voters disagree with your assertion:
> 
> [


You seem to think that I'm anti-Bears Ears. To the contrary, I support the outcomes and protections afforded by the designation. I also recognize that I shouldn't just be OK with the means of designation because I like the outcome.

What happens when the antiquities act is called upon again, but there is a provision in the designation to limit or eliminate hunting on a future monument? Unlikely? Hopefully. Impossible? Nope.

Just trying to have an open discussion here instead of an ideological pissing match.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> You seem to think that I'm anti-Bears Ears. To the contrary, I support the outcomes and protections afforded by the designation. I also recognize that I shouldn't just be OK with the means of designation because I like the outcome.
> 
> What happens when the antiquities act is called upon again, but there is a provision in the designation to limit or eliminate hunting on a future monument? Unlikely? Hopefully. Impossible? Nope.
> 
> Just trying to have an open discussion here instead of an ideological pissing match.


No, I don't think you're anti Bears Ears. You're not the only one who has stated that Obama's designation was an abuse of the Act, others here have expressed the same view. I was pointing out that there doesn't appear to be a majority in Utah who agree with that viewpoint. I imagine the numbers in a national poll would disagree even more strongly. Abuse, like beauty, appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

There is no provision in the Antiquities Act as written to restrict hunting. Obama's designation specifically stated that hunting and fishing would remain the purview of the DWR. I have no problem with the Act and believe it's worked very well for the past 111 years. People are free to disagree, but I'd leave well enough alone. Beware Bishop and the Koch brothers. I'm all for an open and honest discussion about public lands or any other topic. Keep it up.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Alas - I just hope I can draw the San Juan LE bull before it...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> If the Antiquities Act were to be done away with(literally or effectively via Bishop's Bill), do you see any potential negative ramifications? What would be the best or proper way to ensure that areas of either historical or geographic importance are preserved?
> 
> I'm not asking to be argumentative at all. Just sincerely trying to understand how the management and protection of certain sections of public land would function in lieu of the Act.


Fair question, especially considering the current political climate. Constitutionally, this is a power reserved for congress. The only reason the president has ever been able to designate a monument is because congress passed a law delegating some of its power to the executive. If that law was amended or repealed, that power would return to congress. Where at least philosophically, I believe it should be.



Kwalk3 said:


> Ultimately, at the end of the day, I care about public land being preserved and available for hunting and fishing. Monument, Forest, whatever. So long as I can access it for hunting and fishing I can probably survive.


My position exactly!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> As for what are we waiting for? The Antiquities Act is an important act that has permanently protected some amazing places and was originally used to protect many of our national parks until congress finally realized how special those places were. *How do you know Vanilla the same thing won't be said of current national monuments in the future?*


Oh 1-eye, I sure as heck hope not! Could you imagine losing the ability to hunt the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears? Man, I hope and pray with every fiber of my being these monuments do not follow that previous pattern! Please, please, please do not let this happen.

I'd much rather strip the designation, leave them as BLM and National Forest Land, and keep hunting them than get in traffic jams on the road with a bunch of tourists all day long. Sorry, I'm a bit selfish that way I guess. But I'd prefer Bears Ears as it was a year ago over turning it into Yellowstone any day of the week!!! Again, I sure hope you are not right. That would be devestating for hunting in Utah.


----------

