@Holladay Mom,The designation of these national monuments did not
create more federal land. Your comment seems to indicate that you believe these
actions constituted a taking by the federal government from the state of Utah.
Maybe you've allowed yourself to be fooled by Senator Hatch's
disingenuous characterization of the designation of the Bears Ears as a
'land grab.' His statements on this issue have been unfortunately
colored in a way to skew facts and generate animosity towards the monument,
despite the fact that a majority of Utahns support the monument's
Let's make a deal...Once every state has an equal percentage of
federally owned land - in Utah it is roughly 65% - any future president can
begin taking more. Look it up for yourselves and see that THE GREAT
STATE of UTAH has contributed far-far more than its fair share to the federal
A bad idea brought to you by the GOP kleptocracy and the
cosplaytriots/walmartyrs who seem to want to give away their own birthright in
order to stick it to the hated 'libs'.
Reply to Shaun: You are technically correct. The locals do not own the land.
They do not hold title. The corporations do not technically own the land and
cannot buy it either, they must do the same as the locals to use the land. I am
not talking hiking or fishing in use of the land. I am talking permits. Locals
and corporations acquire permits for use. Grazing, mining, logging, cutting
firewood ect. So if you are still wondering how that hurts the local economy.
Local companies that would like to buy a permit to harvest lumber cannot
acquire a permit. Outside corporations or local corporations cannot acquire a
permit to mine or drill for natural gas or oil. Local ranchers cannot acquire
grazing permits, and they can't buy more land other than from each other,
because it is not for sale. So without those permits to use the land, there are
no projects, no job creation. These area's are already surrounded by
State and Federal Lands, and there economies were set up around this permitting
process, Then that was changed.
This isn't local land because they do not hold title to it.If
Utah is going to fight for federal land in Utah it should gift the land to Utah
residents through a lottery. Otherwise it is just another corporate land grab.
James E - that's absurd. The act only gives the secretary of the interior
power to carry out what Congress had already delegated, it doesn't make the
secretary of the interior into a kingmaker who can give the president whatever
power he wants to bestow.It no more gives Zinke power to authorize
the president to rescind monuments than it gives Zinke power to authorize the
president to dissolve Congress and rule as sole dictator.You may not
like the Antiquities Act, but the vast majority of Americans - and Utahns in
particular - over the past 110 years have been extremely grateful for it.
We're grateful for the vision Teddy Roosevelt and others had and the
preservation of our national heritage it has allowed. It is a great part of our
Republican conservationist heritage. Our senators at the time, Republicans Reed
Smoot and George Sutherland, played important roles in establishing and
expanding the forest and parks systems.jsf, yes, a few presidents
have overreached their executive authority to take unconstitutional action. That
doesn't mean it's right or constitutional. Those actions weren't
challenged in court and set no precedent.
Good move by ZinkeNow for every acre of national monument land out
west... We want an acre east of the Mississippi designated as national
monuments... Let's see how east coast libs take the restrictions on their
Ron Swanson wrote:"Way to go, it's good to see govt
succeed."The next step is for this thing to go to the courts.
You think using the Antiquities Act to create GSENM and Bears Ears is
unprecedented? Let's see what the courts say about Trump's
shenanigans. Of course, when the courts decide that what he did was
unlawful, guys like Ron Swanson will be the first to scream, "Judicial
overreach! The gov't is corrupt!"
@Prodicus - the actual text of the Antiquities Act (16 USC 431-433) Sec 2 says
this: "[POTUS] is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public
proclamation historic landmarks [etc]...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..." Then Sec 4 says, "That the
Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid [in Sec 3] shall make and publish from
time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of this Act." So if the Sec of the Interior publishes a rule
saying Trump can reduce the area of the monument to carry out the provisions of
Section 2, this action conforms to the law as written. Not to say I
agree with this law. It is anti-democratic and a ridiculous abdication of power
by the Congress, the so-called representatives of The People.
As a lifelong GOP voter, I just wish Trump and the GOP just had some real ideas
of their own rather than spending all of their time trying to undo something
Obama did. After all these years waiting to get full control, is
this the best we can expect??And I keep seeing people write that
this would somehow give local residents more access. As if they're now shut
out from being able to use any of the land in their area. Like these people in
So. Utah depend on being able to drive up in the hills every day to collect
firewood and hunt game to survive. Let's be honest: It's
all about giving out of state oil & gas companies more access.
impartial and ranch handwhy don't you just give the feds your
property if you have any. You two seem to be enamored with the feds controlling
everything. some of don't so ante up.
Prodicus, there is precedence of Presidents changing monuments, sorry it has
never been deemed a constitutional issue. But I'll bet they
can find some liberal anti-Trump judge to try.
I believe this is in the best interest of the local residents. Which should be
considered. It should have been considered in the first place. I would like to
quote a commercial I heard this week. Dave Ramsey said, "nothing is free you
dope, someone has to pay for it" Speaking of the Grand Staircase Monument,
the local residents lost much because of the decision. Question, for all of you
who want the Monuments to stay the same size, did you lose anything? Did any
of you lose your job, or have your family members have to move away to find
employment? Does your political view put politics in front of people? Local
residents paid the price for the past 30+ years. It has not been a no harm no
foul policy. I also noticed in some of the comment what the
strategy will be. Lawyer up and try to fight everything in court! That right
there ought to be enough to get the silent majority to not be so silent.
This is simply the triumph of partisan pandering over intelligent management.James E, jsf, and others: the difference between creating and
rescinding/downsizing monuments is clear to anyone who cares about the
Constitution. Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of the US Constitution
gives Congress - not the President or executive branch agencies - the power to
make all rules and regulations about federal property. Congress doesn't
want to make every single administrative regulatory decision, so it passes laws
that authorize specific administrative powers.The Antiquities Act
gave the President authority to create monuments, and it has been repeatedly
found constitutional by the courts - including the creation of very large
monuments. The first time it was tested in the Supreme Court was in Cameron v
United States in 1920, where the creation of the more than 800,000 acre Grand
Canyon National Monument was found constitutional.Congress retains
authority to make monument designations of its own, and the Antiquities Act does
not give the president authority to rescind or downsize monuments, whether
created by Congress or by the President. Those powers remain with Congress.
Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase are pay back to Utah for having common sense
and voting against Clinton and O bama that is obvious!!
Congress didn't intend for this to be a means for candidates to curry favor
and raise money.This act is to protect SPECIAL land.
No, that land does NOT belong to all Americans! When the Plains states were
settled, the government initiated the "land rush" saying that if you go
"homestead" the land, develop it, and stay on it for so many years, then
the land was yours. When it came to the Rocky Mountains though, the government
simply changed their policy. And so those that came here, that
"homesteaded' it, developed it, built on it for a century before anyone
else had any interest in it... and now the double-standard is coming to home to
roost. Theses pioneers cleared the land, have built an economy around it, and
now the environmentalists are "land grabbing" because it looks good and
they covet it. You can take it to court, and perhaps win, but that doesn't
make it honest, and I'm with the Bundy's. Those that settled the
Mountains deserve the same rights as those that settled the Plains.
Thomas Thompson - "And does the President have the unilateral authority to
do this on his own? I think not." So when "your
president" unilaterally uses his authority to change monument boundaries,
it's just jim dandy but when "not-your president" does the same
thing it's a criminal act? Common-sense Americans are tired of this Liberal
double-standard nonsense where Trump is tarred and feathered for rightly blaming
both sides in Charlottesville while Colbert literally throws out
"1940's German salutes" on TV and nothin'. Crickets. So warm up the lawyers, put out the formulaic donor e-mails and burn all your
funds ramming headlong into the battleship USS Donald Trump. Meanwhile he and
his supporters will continue making America great again.
"does the President have the unilateral authority to do this on his
own?"If the lord can give it, then I would think the lord could
take it away. If it didn't have to go through the legislative
body, then the reversal does not need to go through the legislative body. If
conservationists think the courts can prevent the president from reversing these
monuments, then by declaring that unconstitutional, they will have then declared
the creation of the monuments as unconstitutional. Law is a two edge sword.
@ GreenwoodjWhile I agree with much of what you say, you did
mis-state something. Utah is not the state with the most Federally owned land in
the Union. I believe that designation goes to Alaska and then Nevada. The top
five are: AK = 95.8%, NV=87.8%, UT= 75.2%, ID=70.4%, OR= 60.4%.In
regards to the Bears Ears. I would protect every cliff dwelling and the land
surrounding it by .5 miles plus the entire area actually surrounding the two
"Bears Ears" as that is the sacred ground (I believe). For the Grand
Staircase, all of the slot canyons should be protected and the towing cliffs.But right now, the way these monuments were drawn it appears that the
boundaries were extended as far as the eye could see, which in some cases is 50
- 70 miles. From relatives homes in Blanding, I can easily see the Bears Ears
over 50 miles as the crow flies. I can even see Shiprock in NM (70 plus miles
away), so using the distance one can see, covers a lot of ground, something many
in the East and on the Coasts don't comprehend.
This seems like an action by and for the People. Interesting how some
claim that a president can summarily restrict land, but that a president can
never un-restrict land. How is that fair--when the federal government is
limiting and taking over state or private lands? This is how rights are eroded,
and seized by one zealous faction.
This is exactly how politics should work! If Trump were so awful he would have
pushed to rescind anything created by those he didn't like. Nope, review
the status and make a determination. Way to go, it's good to see govt
How come the reporter fails to point out that what the Secretary of the Interior
is proposing would shrink the monument designation by 90 percent? Is that
really what we want? And does the President have the unilateral authority to do
this on his own? I think not.
A totally appropriate move to reduce the excesses in use of the Antiquities Act
by a couple of former presidents. They went far beyond what the law says about
using the least amount of land necessary to preserve the
'antiquities'. If you want to preserve more than the law allows, then
work through congress to do it.
@greenwoodj;The wolves are those who would rape and pillage every
last bit of natural land that we have in this country - and especially in Utah.
Utah's legislature is not any better; they're willing to sell off
everything to be strip-mined, polluted and destroyed. All in the name of the
Disgusting.Here come the court battles.
I am all for protecting areas that need protection. I have visited almost
every one of these areas for years and years. The effects of land abuse are
happening, ironically, AFTER the monument designation as all it has done was to
popularize the area. It's scare tactics pure and simple by self serving
conservation groups that the land will be ravaged. Ever notice how you write
something in support of them, how your email inbox then becomes full of their
@greenwoodObama Secretary of Interior spent 4 days here last Summer
interacting with people and actually met with all parties and had a public
meeting. Something Zinke did not. Additionally, she spent 4 years prodding and
supporting Bishops "local" solution. Those are the facts.
The "wilderness society" from where? Not Utah. The court issue is no
threat at all unless it is just intended to tie things up until this president
is gone. What about what is best for the State and the nation? About
Presidential Authority. That is what is at issue here. If one president had
total authority to take parts of a state with no questions or challenge, then
another has the same authority to change it. Believe it or not, I am not on one
side or the other in this issue. I am, however, against mindless ideas without
merit. I totally agree that the issue of total presidential power over park
lands is not a good idea. Let us fix that one then maybe we can have responsible
presidential actions over land but under intelligent scrutiny.
Very good news indeed. The angst by the lefties is a bonus. lol
This is a most appropriate recommendation to reduce the sizes of the mentioned
national monuments. The entire Bears Ears area was just as
pristine one year ago (before national monument designation) as it is now. It
is amazing however, that if it is reduced at all, many comment that the entire
area is now an enormous strip mine and has lost all beauty. It has survived
under it's previous status with humans nearby engaging in multiple use for
at least the last 150 years.
I worry when comments like that brand things so blindly. If the henhouse is our
nation, then Clinton was certainly a wolf when he pulled the stunt he did with
the staircase. We are supposed to be a nation of people who work out things
together. Doing what he did totally in secret keeping any Utah input impossible
at an Arizona location then federalizing the whole southern part of the state
was certainly the act of a wolf. Nobody is eliminating the parks, just
downsizing some so the point of having them do what was a hoped to be
accomplished while allowing the needs of those who live there are considered.
Utah is more Federal than any other state. It is sad when eastern residents who
know nothing about the west dictate life for people they have no knowledge of
how they live. At least someone came out and looked at the entire matter before
suggesting any action. Clinton and Obama did neither. So who are the real wolves
you speak of here?
@NoNamesAccepted;That land does NOT belong to "the locals".
It belongs to all Americans.
Yes, the east coast wolves will lock out the locals from their land just to
build a legacy or garner a few left coast votes.Those who want to
eliminate all human activity on lands in Utah should lead out by moving out of
State. The entire region was once sacred tribal lands to one group or
another.We all want to protect truly amazing areas. We also need
jobs, ranching, and energy and the ability to recreate, including motorized
recreation.Most of Utah is very well suited to multiple use.
Don't worry folks. The lawsuits resulting from this poorly thought out
"plan" will be tied up in court longer than Trump will be President.
Hopefully, the next President will actually be competent and will drop this
This is what happens when you put wolves in charge of the hen house.