5 ms·

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

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.
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  > Ranchers in general get a pretty sweet deal from the feds. See, this is the problem mindset, and the reason people are protesting. The mindset should not be "oh, it's all owned by the federal government, and everything they choose to give you you should be grateful for" The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time.
  - blackguardx 10y ago
    > The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ The BLM doesn't make a profit. Actually they (rather, the Dept. of the Interior) don't charge enough for things like mineral extraction. Think of it this way. You and I and everyone else owns those minerals. The US should make sure that we as taxpayers are getting our fair share of their value. It is the same thought process behind the FCC and spectrum auctions. When there is a public good involved, the government needs to make sure it is being put to the best use for all of the citizens. Not just the first people in the door or the well connected. >Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time. This is an erroneous statement. Where did you read this? More people are using BLM land, especially in the Bears Ears area than ever before. This is because of population growth and increased awareness of BLM land. In the past, it was just ranchers and hunters using the land. Now people go hiking, ride ATVs, ride horses (for fun, not work like in the past), etc.

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.

bpodgursky 10y ago
> Ranchers in general get a pretty sweet deal from the feds. See, this is the problem mindset, and the reason people are protesting. The mindset should not be "oh, it's all owned by the federal government, and everything they choose to give you you should be grateful for" The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time.
- blackguardx 10y ago
  > The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ The BLM doesn't make a profit. Actually they (rather, the Dept. of the Interior) don't charge enough for things like mineral extraction. Think of it this way. You and I and everyone else owns those minerals. The US should make sure that we as taxpayers are getting our fair share of their value. It is the same thought process behind the FCC and spectrum auctions. When there is a public good involved, the government needs to make sure it is being put to the best use for all of the citizens. Not just the first people in the door or the well connected. >Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time. This is an erroneous statement. Where did you read this? More people are using BLM land, especially in the Bears Ears area than ever before. This is because of population growth and increased awareness of BLM land. In the past, it was just ranchers and hunters using the land. Now people go hiking, ride ATVs, ride horses (for fun, not work like in the past), etc.