Sutherland Institute yet again. Glossy story to cover up the real motives by
Sutherland. That is the right wings agenda to use public lands for the highest
bidders.The Antiquities Acts has been used by every single President
in the last 40 years. So it wasn't just an Obama thing. However the State
of Utah led by the GOP is using $14 million of our taxpayer funds to supposedly
have these lands returned to the State. The one thing these GOP legislators,
including Herbert fail to remember that those lands were deeded over to the
Federal Government as part of Utah's Constitution.Sutherland
your real motives are showing through again, just a badly as the GOP's to
"take State lands back".
Nice try Sutherland institute! You try to come off as a folksy local but your
institution is nothing but a loudspeaker for the right wing brand of
environmentalism. (drill baby drill)I was happy when Bears Ears was
designated precisely because I don't trust the state government to be
forward thinking enough to preserve this land. The land belongs to the United
States and every person in it - not just to Utahns. It's important to have
undeveloped land where animals can live and we can all access the beauty of the
wilderness for years to come. The money from leasing will be short lived and
scar the land forever. Go drive through Duchesne county if you want to see what
I'm talking about.As an avid fisherman and camper, I say keep
the land in federal hands.
2 bits (4/18 9:26 am):“@Lagomorph - 12:04RE: ‘The nation
by and large is satisfied with the act as it stands’...---He
pretends NO legislature has problems with it (false), so everybody must be OK
with it.” [emphasis added]You miscomprehend my statement. No,
I didn’t even come close to saying that no legislature has problems with
the AA. I never suggested unanimous support. I said “by and large”
the nation is “satisfied,” which allows for some opposition. To
your credit, you did some research and were able to cite a whopping
two—that’s two, one more than one— cases where the act was
limited by Congress in over a century of its existence. To me that shows a
broad and general consensus that the AA is not that controversial or oppressive.
Even “National Apple Pie and Baseball Day” resolutions get more
pushback than that.2 bits (4/18 1:31 and 1:33 pm): “I agree
with using it ‘As originally intended’.”Then you
should have no problem with the Bears Ears designation.
2 bits,“. . . . Who are you protecting the land from? The public?
It's public land! Protecting it from energy exploration? That's not
AA's role (as originally written). Read it. . . . ”______________________________Protecting the land from anything that
imperils significant or historic features of the land is precisely the role
intended by the Antiquities Act. Perhaps you might want to read it again.
"This isn’t about left or right; it’s about the people’s
right to have a meaningful voice in creating principled and sensible land
management policy. Let’s start a dialogue and stand together."This is a well thought out and written opinion piece. And at its face
value, I agree. But the rub has become the definition of "the peoples
voice". As we have seen in politics - the peoples voice rarely has had
anything to do with actual people, and more so with commercial interest wanting
to use public lands for their businesses interest. Just look at the chaotic
zoning in Utah and Salt Lake counties. Look at the battle for a homeless
shelter. Remember how the state is freeing up government owned and paid for
lands for developers - and the replacement will have LESS capacity then that
which it is replacing.Often what it "right" is not what is
popular. None of our national parks were popular choices when those
designations were made. And yet today those are some of America's most
cherished assets. Letting today's passions determine our kids futures is
a poor way to manage anything.
No, 2bits, Wyoming did NOT "sue over the Antiquities Act and win."That's not what happened. Not at all. Perhaps a little research is
needed. Let us know when you've learned the truth.
@Craig ClarkRE: "This op-ed gives lip service to protecting public
lands while seeking to undercut the strongest remaining protections they have
left. The Antiquities Act must be preserved and defended as it was first
intended and set up"...---I agree it needs to be defended
"as it was first intended". That's NOT how it's being used
today. Read it.===Have you read the Antiquities Act?
Not hard. Google "Antiquities Act Text"...If you only have
time for a summary.... Google "Antiquities Act - Wikipidia"...Some may be surprised to learn it doesn't say what you wish it says. Or
what you hope it says. Or even what some Democrats pretend it says.Wikipedia:"This law gives the President of the United States the
authority to, by presidential proclamation, create national monuments from
federal lands"...Again..."From Federal Lands". The
land already has some protection. It's already public land, managed by
Federal agencies (BLM, NFS, NPS, etc).Who are you protecting the
land from? The public? It's public land!Protecting it from
energy exploration? That's not AA's role (as originally written).
Read it.I agree with using it "As originally intended".
This op-ed gives lip service to protecting public lands while seeking to
undercut the strongest remaining protections they have left. The Antiquities Act
must be preserved and defended as it was first intended and set up. It is a
@Lagomorph - 12:04RE: "The nation by and large is satisfied with the
act as it stands"...---He pretends no legislature has problems
with it (false), so everybody must be OK with it.Wyoming had such
issue with how it was used in their State... they sued, and won. The
Antiquities Act can no longer be used in Wyoming without Congressional approval.
Same in Alaska.Google "Antiquities Act - Wikipedia"...Go to "Reduction of powers" section..."Presidential
powers under the Act have been reduced twice. The first time followed the
unpopular proclamation of Jackson Hole National Monument in 1943. The 1950 law
that incorporated Jackson Hole into an enlarged Grand Teton National Park also
amended the Antiquities Act, requiring Congressional consent for any future
creation or enlargement of National Monuments in Wyoming. The second time
followed Jimmy Carter's use of the Act to create fifty-six million acres
(230,000 km²) of National Monuments in Alaska. The Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act requires Congressional ratification of the use of
Antiquities Act in Alaska for withdrawals of greater than 5,000 acres"...It has been opposed Lag. And amended. Due to abuse.
If you don't think the Antiquities Act is being abused... Read one
vote's 7:32 a.m. post.RE: "It hinders oil and coal
prospecting and speculating"...---Nowhere in the 1906
Antiquities Act does it say it was passed to allow Presidents to hinder oil or
coal exploration.The Antiquities Act isn't about hindering
oil/coal exploration.Google "Antiquities Act Text"
Democrats..."To declare by public proclamation historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government
of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof
parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the
smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
protected"...Is this the "Smallest area" possible?
2,112 mi² is the smallest area possible?Several smaller
protected areas would have been more compatible with the act as written.Was it really to "hinder oil or coal exploration"... as One Vote
stated?Hint: President wanting to hinder energy exploration is not
covered by Antiquities Act.
It hinders oil and coal prospecting and speculating. Those are core values when
you can buy state legislators.
Another good example of the Sutherland Institute's interpretation of the
Constitution to mean that The Power Of Money Shall Reign Supreme.
Anderson: "The Antiquities Act rejected the American system of checks and
balances..."No, the act was the product of the system of checks
and balances. Either chamber of Congress could have voted it down. The
President could have vetoed it. The Supreme Court could have ruled it
unconstitutional. The electorate, had it objected to the act, could have voted
in legislators and executives to repeal it. That hasn't happened for over
a century, which seems like evidence the nation by and large is satisfied with
the act as it stands.
No need to reform the Antiquities Act. Just repeal it and return to
constitutional legislative process.
The op-ed is somewhat disingenuous , Sutherland is anti public lands in all
I think the antiquities act should include a requirement to check in with the
people living in the State affected, and the people living in the area the
President wants to declare a National Monument first. Then act. Not the other
way around.There should be no rush.Why do Presidents who
do this always wait till they are days away from leaving office? And for sure
don't have to face the voting public again?Do it when you first
take office. Not on you way out (almost as an after-thought)If it
was that urgent, and that important... why did he wait 8 years to do it, and
then pretend it's an emergency? Was it not an emergency 4 years ago? 6
years ago? 8 years ago? 40 years ago? 60 years ago?I mean what
made it an emergency his last days in office?Same for Clinton. Why
did he wait till end if it was so urgent?If Bears Ears was really
"emergency protection"... why was it not an emergency 8 years ago? Or
20 years ago. Most of the abuse of antiquties in this area happend back in the
1950s. Not in 2016.There was no emergency in Bears Ears in 2016
besides Obama wanting to do something "environmental" on his way out.AA should be modified to prevent abuse.
The people have had a voice in all of the National Monuments. They've
elected the leaders who have used the powers decreed to them by the Congress of
the United States. As was evident by Rob Bishops PLI ruse, nothing was going to
be done by a Congress that has been bought by special interest to protect our
public lands for future generations. The Antiquities Act is fine as it is.
What we need to change is how our politicians are bought by special interests.
Ok, how about a more radical solution. Do away with the Antiquities Act
totally. Then have Congress do their job. How about that?
It already is.Local control has proven to be disastrous. Just look
at what's happening in San Juan county. County Commissioners riding ATVs
all over Native American sacred areas. Just the other day the Dnews published a
report on San Juan School District proposing to build a new elementary school
over the top of a Native American cemetery. We keep giving local control chances
to show us they can manage lands and not just think short-term yet they keep
A law for which people? Those with short-sighted financial objectives, or the
rest of us and future generations? Carbon extraction companies, or long term
recreational interests? Private interests who will fence off the land, or
companies that will thrive on bringing tourists in so all can enjoy these
diminishing resources? Sutherland represents the former choices, the the latter
In an ideal world, of course we could come together and talk it out.However, we don't live in that ideal world, nor are we likely to see that
ever. In the real world, the rich and powerful control the decisions made in
our name. Our representatives are beholden to the major contributors to their
election coffers, which generally are not the average person.You
should always follow the money on proposals such as this. And most likely if
you followed the money, you will find energy extraction interests. Those
interests are inherently at odds with most Americans who want heritage lands
preserved for future generation's enjoyment.
Reforming the antiquities act into a law for corporations.Fixed your
title for your true intent.
This piece by Sutherland fails to recognize the relative powers being flexed in
our society. It assumes, as does all right wing viewpoint, an equality among
participants. The people who want preservation for outdoor experiences with
their families are assumed to be equal in power with corporate interests who
want to "drill baby drill." This is of course completely false, but
this assumed equality lies at the heart of all right wing ideology.Because inequality prevails we need the Antiquities capability in its present
form. Without it, there would be few or no federal monuments.