National Monument review plan

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

National Monument review plan

#1

Post by Kendra » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:58 am

I can't find a thread for this, so I'll start one.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... in-secrecy
:snippity:Many of Obama’s biggest monument designations, like Bears Ears in Utah and the expansion of Papahanaumokuakea in the Pacific Ocean, are the main targets of the Trump administration’s review.

“And as additional details continue to leak out from various sources, it’s becoming increasingly clear just how devastating the recommendations will be, which is in direct contrast with Zinke’s spin that there’s just a handful of small changes,” Kelly said.

Numerous groups also filed Freedom of Information Act requests to try to obtain the recommendations.

But supporters of the monument review, such as industries that use federal land like ranching and energy, aren’t concerned, and are confident that Zinke heard their concerns throughout the review process. :snippity:



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: National Monument review plan

#2

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:31 am

Thanks, Kendra. This is an important issue to me. Apparently Confederate monuments are beautiful, but national lands are only beautiful when making money for corporations.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#3

Post by Kendra » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:49 am

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:Thanks, Kendra. This is an important issue to me. Apparently Confederate monuments are beautiful, but national lands are only beautiful when making money for corporations.
I guess because there are no natural resources to be taken from Confederate monuments to satisfy corporate greed and the Koch Brothers? :sarcasm:



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: National Monument review plan

#4

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:03 am

Kendra wrote:
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:Thanks, Kendra. This is an important issue to me. Apparently Confederate monuments are beautiful, but national lands are only beautiful when making money for corporations.
I guess because there are no natural resources to be taken from Confederate monuments to satisfy corporate greed and the Koch Brothers? :sarcasm:
They aren't "green" enough. :mrgreen:


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
rpenner
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Contact:

Re: National Monument review plan

#5

Post by rpenner » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:11 pm

WaPo
Trump’s plan to put fragile national monuments in danger

Thursday brought indication that Mr. Trump may unravel the environmental achievements of more than one president. The Post reported that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke sent recommendations to the White House that include scaling back some of the most prominent national monuments created in the past three decades. Unsurprisingly, Bears Ears National Monument, which Mr. Obama created at the end of his presidency, is top on the list for downsizing. But also on the chopping block is the nearby — and utterly spectacular — Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which President Bill Clinton established in 1996. Some monuments that are not set to shrink could nevertheless lose some protection. More fishing could be permitted in sensitive marine monuments, for example.

The details are secret, which is a problem in itself. What is clear enough is that an extensive tour of southern Utah and consultation with local tribes, who pushed for preservation, did not impart on Mr. Zinke the proper awe for the natural wonders he is now endangering. In June the secretary issued an initial report on Bears Ears that did not suggest restraint in rolling back the national monument.

Narrowly interpreting the law under which national monuments have been established, Mr. Zinke indicated that only isolated “rock art, dwellings, ceremonial sites, granaries” in Bears Ears deserve national monument protection, arguing that it was appropriate only to “identify and separate the areas that have significant objects.” This is not how presidents have used the law since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, who set aside more than 800,000 acres of the Grand Canyon. Presidents for decades have preserved spectacular, irreplaceable and integrated natural landscapes, not just one butte or cliff dwelling at a time.

...



arock
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:27 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#6

Post by arock » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:04 pm

From the Sierra Club: Interior Secretary Zinke Says He Will Shrink Some National Monuments

http://sierraclub.org/sierra/interior-s ... -monuments

:snippity:

Even as they wait the final details of Zinke’s recommendations, national and regional conservation groups are preparing to file lawsuits to challenge the impending monument downsizings, which they say are unconstitutional. Legal scholars who have studied the Antiquities Act—the 1906 law that gives the president the authority to establish national monuments—are largely in agreement that the Trump administration will have a difficult time defending in court any substantial monument reductions.

“The argument that I have made is that Trump does not have the authority to change these things,” Mark Squillace, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Law who has written about the Antiquities Act, told Sierra. “The Antiquities Act is a delegation of power from Congress to the presidency. . . . Under the Antiquities Act, they [Congress] gave the president power to protect lands under the law. It doesn’t say anything about reducing or revoking monument designations.”

Squillace said it is likely that lawsuits challenging any monument reductions will be filed in the U.S. federal district courts where the monuments are located, and that—no matter what the district courts first rule—appeals are likely. “So we are in for a couple of years of litigation over these things, and there is a chance that it could end up at the Supreme Court as well.”

While conservationists express cautious optimism that they will eventually prevail in court—as well as in the court of public opinion, since an estimated 99 percent of the 2.8 million public comments received during Zinke’s review expressed support for maintaining the national monuments as is—they are frustrated at how the Trump-Zinke assault on monuments has distracted from the long-term goals of protecting additional lands and ecologically restoring landscapes that have long enjoyed legal protections.

:snippity:



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#7

Post by Kendra » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:35 am

https://www.outsideonline.com/2238671/t ... -monuments
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke left much to the public imagination when he submitted his review of the 27 national monuments designated since 1996. His eight-paragraph summary mentioned no monuments by name. Zinke did, however, seek to make one point clear: “...there is no doubt that President [Donald] Trump has the authority to review and consider recommendations to modify or add a monument.”

Consider modification, sure. But actually modify? That’s not as certain. The Antiquities Act explicitly mentions creation, not alteration. The president giveth, but can he taketh away? It’s happened before, most notably at Mount Olympus National Monument, which was created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and got small cuts over the next two decades to account for some private land it had swept up. But there’s never been a legal challenge to monument chopping. That’s likely to change soon.

Zinke reportedly will recommend Trump downsize at least four monuments, and various tribal coalitions, environmental groups, and states have vowed to sue should that happen. It’s possible courts will decide that a president can’t alter monuments, thus preserving all Trump-targeted landscapes with a single decision. But if the monuments’ fates are decided on a case-by-case basis, here’s what Western law researchers say to watch for.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#8

Post by Kendra » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:01 pm

http://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-ne ... 42346.html

Argh. Not letting me copy any text. Article from Idaho Statesman about the recommendations on the Cascade Siskiyou suggested alterations.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#9

Post by Kendra » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:04 pm


At a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday, Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) identified multiple factual errors in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s final report to President Trump on national monuments. Take a look:

During an exchange with John Ruhs, Acting Deputy Director of Operations at the Bureau of Land Management, Sen. Heinrich noted that Zinke’s report falsely claims:
•Roads were closed since the designation of Rio Grande del Norte National Monument
•Ranchers have stopped ranching since the designation of Rio Grande del Norte National Monument because of road closures
•Organ Mountains–Desert Peaks National Monument abuts the U.S.–Mexico border
•Both monument proclamations need to be amended to protect hunting and fishing rights

Mr. Ruhs then confirmed that BLM staff were not asked to fact check the error-filled report before Secretary Zinke sent it to President Trump.
Full text and video (which I have not yet watched) of the exchange at the link.



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 5542
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#10

Post by pipistrelle » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:45 pm




User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18098
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: National Monument review plan

#11

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:17 am

following link in above tweet:
Besides moving employees, Zinke said he wants to speed up permits for oil drilling, logging and other energy development that now can take years.

"The president wants it yesterday," Zinke said, referring to permits for energy development. "We have to do it by the law."
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... ebb81.html

Seems to me this article ought to be mandatory reading as to what Zinke is trying to do with his department.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#12

Post by Kendra » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:52 am

RTH10260 wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:17 am
following link in above tweet:
Besides moving employees, Zinke said he wants to speed up permits for oil drilling, logging and other energy development that now can take years.

"The president wants it yesterday," Zinke said, referring to permits for energy development. "We have to do it by the law."
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... ebb81.html

Seems to me this article ought to be mandatory reading as to what Zinke is trying to do with his department.
Since when do they go by the law?



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#13

Post by Kendra » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:28 am

http://mesquitelocalnews.com/2017/09/bl ... ent-117279

Slightly OT, but worth a mention on Zinke's actions.
The Bureau of Land Management announced a new initiative today to provide grazing permit holders an unprecedented level of flexibility in the management of livestock while also protecting the public lands. This effort emphasizes the Trump Administration’s goal of promoting shared conservation stewardship of public lands while supporting uses such as grazing.

“Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone, it only makes sense that we would enlist them in conservation efforts,” said Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. “One of my top goals is for the government to be a better neighbor, land manager, and partner. I think it’s is a great step in that direction. I applaud the team at BLM for coming up with this innovative program.”



Finlay
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: National Monument review plan

#14

Post by Finlay » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:19 pm

Kendra wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:28 am

“Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone, it only makes sense that we would enlist them in conservation efforts,”
It has been my experience that they really do not. More to the point, the "family farm" demographic is so small as to be non-existent. So many farms/ranches are corporate owned - with quarterly profit targets to meet - and anyway, faced with a choice of getting a gold egg every few days or gutting the goose and getting them all now, I think we know that the goose is as good as cooked.

I'm not making a supposition here. The BLM exists because the common clay ranchers couldn't manage the lands and resorted to open warfare as water and pasture became scarce from overuse. That's not even ancient history, it was barely 100 years ago.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#15

Post by Kendra » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:57 pm

Finlay wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:19 pm
Kendra wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:28 am

“Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone, it only makes sense that we would enlist them in conservation efforts,”
It has been my experience that they really do not. More to the point, the "family farm" demographic is so small as to be non-existent. So many farms/ranches are corporate owned - with quarterly profit targets to meet - and anyway, faced with a choice of getting a gold egg every few days or gutting the goose and getting them all now, I think we know that the goose is as good as cooked.

I'm not making a supposition here. The BLM exists because the common clay ranchers couldn't manage the lands and resorted to open warfare as water and pasture became scarce from overuse. That's not even ancient history, it was barely 100 years ago.
I agree. There is a very good book about the impact of cows on our western lands, Sacred Cows at the Public Trough. I forget the name of the couple that wrote it (and too lazy to look), but they have connections with the Malheur Field Station and had their own stories to tell about interactions with the Hammonds.



User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Re: National Monument review plan

#16

Post by Sequoia32 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:32 pm

It is already happening. I hope lawsuits can keep the destroyers at bay.

The Trump admin auctioned off an imperiled bird habitat to oil companies for a whopping $14,837
The Trump administration has auctioned off acres of habitat for the sage-grouse, which narrowly missed making the endangered species list after an extensive plan to preserve the bird’s habitat took effect during the Obama administration. Which, naturally means Trump is dead set marching back the progress. From Westwise:

Sage-grouse, a chicken-sized bird once widespread in the West, have seen their populations drop dramatically in recent years, thanks in part to oil and gas development. In an effort to keep the sage-grouse off the endangered species list — a move that would limit all forms of development throughout the region — ranchers, conservationists, Western governors and the Obama administration spent years working on collaborative plans to help the species rebound. Widely hailed as a success, the plans resulted in former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announcing that the sage-grouse would avoid the endangered species list. Unfortunately, this success story is under assault.

Citing the Trump administration’s “goals of promoting America’s energy independence,” the Bureau of Land Management put 15,000 acres of public land in Utah’s West Desert up for auction, with winners receiving leases to drill for oil and gas over the next decade. The West Desert is home to the most imperiled population of greater sage-grouse in Utah, whose numbers have plummeted from 190 in 2006 to 23 in 2015. Remarkably, four of the nine parcels put up for auction overlapped with “priority habitat management areas” laid out in the BLM’s own sage-grouse land use plans.

How did the auction go for this precious bird habitat? The Salt Lake Tribune reports it was a total bust:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/9 ... ing-14-837


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

User avatar
maydijo
Posts: 2764
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:23 pm
Location: where women glow and men plunder
Occupation: harassing marsupials

Re: National Monument review plan

#17

Post by maydijo » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:15 pm

Finlay wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:19 pm
Kendra wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:28 am

“Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone, it only makes sense that we would enlist them in conservation efforts,”
It has been my experience that they really do not. More to the point, the "family farm" demographic is so small as to be non-existent. So many farms/ranches are corporate owned - with quarterly profit targets to meet - and anyway, faced with a choice of getting a gold egg every few days or gutting the goose and getting them all now, I think we know that the goose is as good as cooked.

I'm not making a supposition here. The BLM exists because the common clay ranchers couldn't manage the lands and resorted to open warfare as water and pasture became scarce from overuse. That's not even ancient history, it was barely 100 years ago.
Granddaughter (and great granddaughter, and great great granddaughter, and for a few years there, daughter) of a family farmer here. My family's dry-land wheat farm struggled until the 1950s when the US pretty much had a monopoly on wheat; but the real boon was the Reagan-era farm subsidies which also pretty much took the family out of farming. My grandpa used to say that he made more money growing grass than he ever made growing wheat. As for farmers knowing the wildlife better than anyone - generally speaking, wildlife is bad for farming. If you're grazing, they're competition (or, depending on the wildlife, predators). If you're planting, they're pests. There is very little incentive for farmers to want to protect wildlife.

Having said that, I know that my great uncles (who lived their entire lives on the farm) were really very protective towards the wildlife on their farm towards the end of their lives. By then, they were so filthy rich from wise investments and farm subsidies they could afford to be sentimental towards the deer and other wildlife.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#18

Post by Kendra » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:30 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2017/sep/3 ... l-ceremon/
Humboldt Environmentalists Hold Unofficial Ceremony to Rename Vault Toilets After Trump’s Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, Encourage Public to Take a ‘Stinky Zinke’ In His Honor
Video of the naming ceremony at the link.



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 5542
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#19

Post by pipistrelle » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:02 pm

http://people.com/human-interest/robbie ... for-parks/
10-Year-Old Hopes to Save America’s National Parks and Monuments for Future Generations



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#20

Post by Kendra » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:23 pm

http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201 ... staircase/

Washington • President Donald Trump will fly into Utah on Monday to announce that he’ll shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, sources familiar with the trip confirmed to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Trump will travel to Salt Lake City for the announcement to change the boundaries of the two monuments but will not visit them, the sources said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the trip.



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 5542
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#21

Post by pipistrelle » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:00 am

Thousands protest Trump's Utah monument reduction plan

Can someone make sure the Bundys get hold of these headlines/articles? Pretty please?



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: National Monument review plan

#22

Post by TollandRCR » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:32 am

When we get a rational and responsible president and Senate into office, can any of Drumpf’s and Zinke’s actions be reversed?


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: National Monument review plan

#23

Post by TollandRCR » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:44 am

Is there any way for me to spend the rest of my life working on real conservation programs? I need no salary thanks to the universities of Michigan and Connecticut, unless I am required in Ann Arbor or Ann Arbor or Boston or San Francisco? I would need an intern.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18098
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: National Monument review plan

#24

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:09 am

TollandRCR wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:32 am
When we get a rational and responsible president and Senate into office, can any of Drumpf’s and Zinke’s actions be reversed?
My outsiders guess is that it will take again the same efforts as setting up those protections initially, not just a rollback of a rollback. But I could see a wrench thrown into the mechanism if this administration immedialty grants rights to process natural resources on the freed land. It may be difficult to undo those contracts, especially if granted for an extended period of time like decades.



User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: National Monument review plan

#25

Post by Kendra » Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:53 am

http://kutv.com/news/local/thousands-pr ... ction-plan

Video at the link of yesterday's protest in Utah.



Post Reply

Return to “President & Executive Branch”