4 ms·

Without making this too political, there would be far less pushing by the states to get this land back if the federal government hadn't gone on a (ahem) roughly

Without making this too political, there would be far less pushing by the states to get this land back if the federal government hadn't gone on a (ahem) roughly 8 year spree of turning it into enormous national monuments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument#Designation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument#D... Turning federal land into national monuments greatly limits the traditional uses of these publicly held lands -- restrictions on livestock grazing, hunting, camping, etc. Obviously there needs to be responsible land stewardship, but abusing the antiquities act to carve out enormous not-parks-but-not-free chunks of land isn't the best way to get everyone working together there.

vkou 10y ago
Designating an area a national monument ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. On the other hand, every other way of losing public land also ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. Suppose that you sell it for a song to your friends, or allow resource extraction in an environmentally sensitive area... A decade down the road, you can't wave a magic wand, and undo that damage. The fact of the matter is that once public lands are lost, they are gone - forever. Every election year, we must fight to keep public lands public - we only need to lose once, and then its over. Can you really blame someone for seeking a more permanent solution to this problem?
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  Yeah, but allowing cattle to graze on land they've been grazing on for 100 years keeps states from starting campaigns to take it back. I'm not suggesting that selling to the states is a good idea. I am suggesting that taking _away_ traditional land rights is causing states to push to take ownership of the land. The BLM has not traditionally been enemies of the people using the land. The antagonism is a very new phenomenon.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    I looked for information on the national park you linked to. This says that grazing, hunting, fishing, recreation, etc., would all still be allowed[1]: >The monument designations maintain currently authorized uses of the land that do not harm the resources protected by the monument, including tribal access and traditional collection of plants and firewood, off-highway vehicle recreation, hunting and fishing and authorized grazing. It's apparently also an important deal for tribal sovereignty[2]: > Under the Bears Ears Monument designation, an intertribal coalition will partner with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to manage the area — which is slightly bigger than the state of Delaware — ensuring that tribes have access to food supplies and firewood. This[3] says that existing grazing is usually grandfathered in, but that new grazing is limited. I get the impression that there's a lot of disinformation out there. [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack-applaud-presidents-designation-new-national-monuments-utah https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bears-ears-monument-is-a-win-for-tribal-food-sovereignty-will-trump-undo-it http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bea... [3] http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-wants-bears-ears-gone-and-he-wants-trump-to-do-it http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-...
    - rocqua 10y ago
      I'd like to point out the difference between national parks and national monuments. Creating a national park requires an act of congres, creating a national monument only takes an executive order[1]. I can imagine states are much more worried about executive orders as opposed to acts of congress. [1] https://vault.sierraclub.org/planet/199611/nationalpark.asp https://vault.sierraclub.org/planet/199611/nationalpark.asp
  - blackguardx 10y ago
    I've met with the BLM folks out there and helped them repair trails. The BLM isn't anyones enemy. They have gotten a lot of guns pointed at them by people who are upset that they can't ride ATVs in an area with lots of sensitive Anasazi artifacts, though. The BLM gets along just fine with many ranchers. There are a few bad apples out there that think that because they were the only ones using the public land for a while that they should keep it. Ranchers in general get a pretty sweet deal from the feds. Be skeptical of claims that they are getting screwed. The prices they have paid are extremely low.
blackguardx 10y ago
I frequently visit the area of the future (present?) Bears Ears National Monument. It is interesting to hear people say "traditional uses" of the land out there. Each person has their own definition. The problem is that non-native people didn't live out there until relatively recently. For example: how can cattle grazing in a desert be considered traditional if it has only happened for 100 years or so? It is a desert, after all, not a lush grassland. Also, the propaganda that calls this a "land grab" is misleading. The land was already owned by the federal government. They aren't taking anything. Yes, they are placing restrictions on use (which will negatively impact me, btw), but the popularity of the area has exploded just in the last few years. I don't think the current "free for all" (which is fun) approach can continue forever. The only thing that concerns me about national monument status is that they might try to make it into a Disney Land experience like the other national parks. It would be ruined in my mind if they created giant paved RV campgrounds with flush-toilet bathrooms. Find a copy of the book "Desert Solitaire" for a better written summary of the issues out there. My views track pretty closely with the author's.
matt4077 10y ago
The designation as a national monument seeks to protect the status quo, including any recreational or low-intensity commercial use, as long as those are sustainable. The states actually have a far worse record on providing public access and use for land owned by them. While the federal government is bound by law to allow, for example, hunting or hiking, states tend to seek avenues for monetising their land, often charging for access or leasing to mining/drilling/farming operations which in turn prohibit public access. Those national monument designations were also, in turn, just a reaction to the "drill, baby, drill" chorus echoing through the last few Republican campaigns. The actual economic impact of exploring the remaining natural resources is uncertain at best, considering the low market prices and the practical reasons why these deposits have remained untouched so far. That creates the impression that this is an emotional subject, meaning that parts of the political spectrum would gladly drill a well and pump oil right into the next Alaskan creek as long as it sufficiently enrages liberals. There's emotion on the other side as well, without a doubt. But those lucky bastards somehow get to trigger their opponents by protecting the Orange Oregonian Owl.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Looking at the HN comments, I think the key problem here is in individual tastes. Whatever you do, the land has to be managed. "Managed" can mean a dozen things to a dozen people. Some folks want it completely untouched. Some folks want to manage it as perhaps a farmer or rancher would. Some folks want a place to ride ATVs and raise hell. Political systems exist for political reasons. That is the only reason they exist. Lately, any political system in the States is going to gravitate towards one group throwing mud at another group. So, to address your first sentence, I do not believe there is any way for this not to be political. Perhaps the key question instead is this: at what level of politics should these decisions take place? Should everything happen at the national level? If so, why? Personally, I'd prefer a limit of thirds between national, state, and local governments. That way any one political group doesn't start monopolizing all the power. It shouldn't be possible for us to have a single election at any level of government and decide how to treat huge sections of public land. For that reason alone, I'm against the current trend of federalizing everything. It's not because I want the land to be commercialized. In fact, I want just the opposite. But those are my tastes. I understand others have their own views. Let's stay as far away as possible from more winner-take-all political structures.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Between the viable options, I'll say that at least lobbying for unfair largess from the federal government is more expensive and takes more finesse. Some of the giveaways from state legislatures boggle the mind.
  - fittingin 10y ago
    They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people. I live in a small desert community that was largely agricultural in my youth. Today, most of the water rights have been sold away and most of the farm land has been developed for other uses. I think it is unfortunate. Sometimes I think the remaining farm land should be protected from development. But I do not own the land, and I did not do all the work to turn it into farm land. I believe the owners of the property have the right to do as they decide for themselves. So, if I really want the land to be preserved, I can try to raise millions of dollars and buy the land from the farmers. But I can't otherwise just block them from selling it to a developer. If you think state officials mismanage public lands and would prefer the feds to mismanage it, the feds should buy it from the state. This should not be a forced sale, either. If a state has willingly sold its land to the feds... well, I guess they can't complain. Can you tell me how the federal government came to own 80+% of Nevada? Ask the Sheahans [1] and the Bundys [2]. Edit: Corrected typo [1] http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-fighting-land-seizure-accuses-us-bullying-tactics http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-f... [2] http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-government-own-84-of-nevada-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-gove...
jaegerpicker 10y ago
I fail to see any logic in that at all. "The Government is taking our public land to make it public forever but limited use! I know let's sell our public land so it's never public again! That will..... fix it?"

vkou 10y ago

Designating an area a national monument ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. On the other hand, every other way of losing public land also ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. Suppose that you sell it for a song to your friends, or allow resource extraction in an environmentally sensitive area... A decade down the road, you can't wave a magic wand, and undo that damage. The fact of the matter is that once public lands are lost, they are gone - forever. Every election year, we must fight to keep public lands public - we only need to lose once, and then its over. Can you really blame someone for seeking a more permanent solution to this problem?

bpodgursky 10y ago
Yeah, but allowing cattle to graze on land they've been grazing on for 100 years keeps states from starting campaigns to take it back. I'm not suggesting that selling to the states is a good idea. I am suggesting that taking _away_ traditional land rights is causing states to push to take ownership of the land. The BLM has not traditionally been enemies of the people using the land. The antagonism is a very new phenomenon.
- Chathamization 10y ago
  I looked for information on the national park you linked to. This says that grazing, hunting, fishing, recreation, etc., would all still be allowed[1]: >The monument designations maintain currently authorized uses of the land that do not harm the resources protected by the monument, including tribal access and traditional collection of plants and firewood, off-highway vehicle recreation, hunting and fishing and authorized grazing. It's apparently also an important deal for tribal sovereignty[2]: > Under the Bears Ears Monument designation, an intertribal coalition will partner with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to manage the area — which is slightly bigger than the state of Delaware — ensuring that tribes have access to food supplies and firewood. This[3] says that existing grazing is usually grandfathered in, but that new grazing is limited. I get the impression that there's a lot of disinformation out there. [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack-applaud-presidents-designation-new-national-monuments-utah https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bears-ears-monument-is-a-win-for-tribal-food-sovereignty-will-trump-undo-it http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bea... [3] http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-wants-bears-ears-gone-and-he-wants-trump-to-do-it http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-...
  - rocqua 10y ago
    I'd like to point out the difference between national parks and national monuments. Creating a national park requires an act of congres, creating a national monument only takes an executive order[1]. I can imagine states are much more worried about executive orders as opposed to acts of congress. [1] https://vault.sierraclub.org/planet/199611/nationalpark.asp https://vault.sierraclub.org/planet/199611/nationalpark.asp
- blackguardx 10y ago
  I've met with the BLM folks out there and helped them repair trails. The BLM isn't anyones enemy. They have gotten a lot of guns pointed at them by people who are upset that they can't ride ATVs in an area with lots of sensitive Anasazi artifacts, though. The BLM gets along just fine with many ranchers. There are a few bad apples out there that think that because they were the only ones using the public land for a while that they should keep it. Ranchers in general get a pretty sweet deal from the feds. Be skeptical of claims that they are getting screwed. The prices they have paid are extremely low.

blackguardx 10y ago

I frequently visit the area of the future (present?) Bears Ears National Monument. It is interesting to hear people say "traditional uses" of the land out there. Each person has their own definition. The problem is that non-native people didn't live out there until relatively recently. For example: how can cattle grazing in a desert be considered traditional if it has only happened for 100 years or so? It is a desert, after all, not a lush grassland. Also, the propaganda that calls this a "land grab" is misleading. The land was already owned by the federal government. They aren't taking anything. Yes, they are placing restrictions on use (which will negatively impact me, btw), but the popularity of the area has exploded just in the last few years. I don't think the current "free for all" (which is fun) approach can continue forever. The only thing that concerns me about national monument status is that they might try to make it into a Disney Land experience like the other national parks. It would be ruined in my mind if they created giant paved RV campgrounds with flush-toilet bathrooms. Find a copy of the book "Desert Solitaire" for a better written summary of the issues out there. My views track pretty closely with the author's.

matt4077 10y ago

The designation as a national monument seeks to protect the status quo, including any recreational or low-intensity commercial use, as long as those are sustainable. The states actually have a far worse record on providing public access and use for land owned by them. While the federal government is bound by law to allow, for example, hunting or hiking, states tend to seek avenues for monetising their land, often charging for access or leasing to mining/drilling/farming operations which in turn prohibit public access. Those national monument designations were also, in turn, just a reaction to the "drill, baby, drill" chorus echoing through the last few Republican campaigns. The actual economic impact of exploring the remaining natural resources is uncertain at best, considering the low market prices and the practical reasons why these deposits have remained untouched so far. That creates the impression that this is an emotional subject, meaning that parts of the political spectrum would gladly drill a well and pump oil right into the next Alaskan creek as long as it sufficiently enrages liberals. There's emotion on the other side as well, without a doubt. But those lucky bastards somehow get to trigger their opponents by protecting the Orange Oregonian Owl.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Looking at the HN comments, I think the key problem here is in individual tastes. Whatever you do, the land has to be managed. "Managed" can mean a dozen things to a dozen people. Some folks want it completely untouched. Some folks want to manage it as perhaps a farmer or rancher would. Some folks want a place to ride ATVs and raise hell. Political systems exist for political reasons. That is the only reason they exist. Lately, any political system in the States is going to gravitate towards one group throwing mud at another group. So, to address your first sentence, I do not believe there is any way for this not to be political. Perhaps the key question instead is this: at what level of politics should these decisions take place? Should everything happen at the national level? If so, why? Personally, I'd prefer a limit of thirds between national, state, and local governments. That way any one political group doesn't start monopolizing all the power. It shouldn't be possible for us to have a single election at any level of government and decide how to treat huge sections of public land. For that reason alone, I'm against the current trend of federalizing everything. It's not because I want the land to be commercialized. In fact, I want just the opposite. But those are my tastes. I understand others have their own views. Let's stay as far away as possible from more winner-take-all political structures.

ethbro 10y ago
Between the viable options, I'll say that at least lobbying for unfair largess from the federal government is more expensive and takes more finesse. Some of the giveaways from state legislatures boggle the mind.
- fittingin 10y ago
  They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people. I live in a small desert community that was largely agricultural in my youth. Today, most of the water rights have been sold away and most of the farm land has been developed for other uses. I think it is unfortunate. Sometimes I think the remaining farm land should be protected from development. But I do not own the land, and I did not do all the work to turn it into farm land. I believe the owners of the property have the right to do as they decide for themselves. So, if I really want the land to be preserved, I can try to raise millions of dollars and buy the land from the farmers. But I can't otherwise just block them from selling it to a developer. If you think state officials mismanage public lands and would prefer the feds to mismanage it, the feds should buy it from the state. This should not be a forced sale, either. If a state has willingly sold its land to the feds... well, I guess they can't complain. Can you tell me how the federal government came to own 80+% of Nevada? Ask the Sheahans [1] and the Bundys [2]. Edit: Corrected typo [1] http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-fighting-land-seizure-accuses-us-bullying-tactics http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-f... [2] http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-government-own-84-of-nevada-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-gove...

jaegerpicker 10y ago

I fail to see any logic in that at all. "The Government is taking our public land to make it public forever but limited use! I know let's sell our public land so it's never public again! That will..... fix it?"