RBC - Cody, WYArticle 1 section 8 paragraph 17 of the US
Constitution specifically states the conditions under which the US Government
may own land in the states."To exercise exclusive Legislation in
all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as
may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the
Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings..."The Federal Government is prohibited
from owning land in any state if the state legislature has not agreed to sell
it. They used to obey this; however, once the country expanded to the far west,
they forgot they had to obey the constitution.Bears Ears is not a
fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard or any other needful building. The state did
not sell it. The Feds can't own it.
The Secretary of the Interior can issue a report, but only Congress can modify
or revoke a national monument (Sec. 204, Federal Land Policy and Management Act
@Happy Valley HereticYeah, SUWA advertising in WaPo and the NYT that
monuments are important because they safeguard grazing "forever" is
funny. Everyone knows SUWA hates cows about as much as they hate the rednecks
who ranch them. It's clear you're being disingenuous, but if you
really need a specific example: one of the specific planks in their demagoguery
of the PLI was that it "prioritize(d) and entrench(ed) livestock
grazing."I'm curious about your statement about Bishop.
What "special interests" would benefit from a rescission of BENM? Please
Giles Goat-Boy claims: "SUWA sticking up for grazing? That's
hilarious."Is it?By the way, Staircase Escalante has
more grazing permits available then are being requested.Local businesses
in Kanab, love the added income from the monument near them and have formed a
group that supports such.Sad that an outside group has to protect us
from our greedy representatives who couldn't have cared less about Bears
Ears and the surrounding communities until Obama suggested protection. Bishop sure didn't represent anybody but special interests.
SUWA sticking up for grazing? That's hilarious. Just how dumb is the
audience in Greenwich Village or Georgetown who will read these ads?I also love the persistent conflation of virtue-signaling with actual
conservation. Looting was already illegal and there was/is no threat of mineral
or oil development. Monument designation literally does not one actual thing for
The ads kind of show where the battle lines are drawn, don't they?
Proponents of keeping the monuments are appealing to the east coast liberal
bastions for support. It would be interesting to know how many members of that
audience even know where the monuments are, let alone having actually set foot
Putting politics aside, Bears Ears is a fantastic idea. When you live and die by
political ideology (AKA letting other people do your thinking for you), you do
what you're told and view the protection of cultural heritage sites and
unique-to-the-world landscapes through the narrow-minded scope of federal
oversight. What do we lose with Bears Ears? The ability to loot and
destroy cultural heritage sites, use motorized vehicles to drive over whatever
we want, and allow big business to sweep in, destroy the landscape for mineral
extraction or develop the land like it was anywhere else. What do we
gain? Protection of cultural sites and continued public access to public lands
in a way that will allow our grandchildren to appreciate them as well. Unless you're in bed with big business, subscribe to political ideology
over common sense, or are interested in the destruction of unique landscapes, I
don't why you'd be opposed to Bears Ears.
Interesting OP-ED in the print version this morning from a Navajo woman who says
the designation will damage the Dine' way of life
What effect would a full page add have? None. Circulation is way down on
newspapers and no one reads the ads anyway.
The land belongs to all Americans and I fully support the Bears Ears National
Monument with strict protections so we can preserve it for our children.
Readers of the New York Times and Washington Post are used to being fed stuff
that is factually incorrect, so their readers will fall for the SUWA claims.This is as much about opposing Trump and supporting Obama as it is about
ensuring that Monuments are the minimum size necessary.They really
need more wilderness areas closer to NYC and DC, not thousands of miles away in
a location that most advocates for BENM could not find on a map if they had to.
RBC- you may want to remember that while you think ee are great, I live here and
i have never wanted to live in Moab, Springdale or Jackson Hole. You are right
in that these lands belong to all Americans and no matter what happens that fact
will not change. It was, is and will be public. You could have visited before,
now or after. See Ya when you come
Suwa, are you getting nervous?
@ The Rock,The problem with your suggestion is that the land doesn't
belong to the people of Utah. If it was state land that your idea would be fine.
But it's public land, which means it belongs to every single citizen of the
BENM. Is and will make a truly great National Monument.
Put it to a vote of the people of Utah and be done with it.
Thanks you SUWA! Time to send another donation.