National Monuments - To be or not to be?

Nick said:
That's an interesting point. I guess what it makes me wonder is, what really is a monument? It's clearly not the same as wilderness and as can be seen in the GSENM, it doesn't stop things like grazing and motor sports. Anyone know? I suppose I could google, but that would require extra reading. :sleep:
Click to expand...

That is a good question. I know it closes the door on the extraction industry. My dad was working for the Utah State Gov. at the time that Clinton created the Escalante NM. He was one of the ones working on the environmental impact review for the massive coal mine that was going into the area. Once the monument was created all of their work was thrown out the window because mining is not allowed in a monument. He thinks that was one of the main reasons Clinton did what he did, though he was actually quite glad to see the mine be axed.
 
Although the Antiquities Act gives the president almost total discretion, it doesn't have to be used arbitrarily. As someone who loves Grand Staircase Escalante, I couldn't be happier that President Clinton did what he did. However, I also have to acknowledge that the way in which he did it made it provoked a backlash that may make future preservation in Utah (and elsewhere) more difficult.

It seems to me that there are ways to wield the Antiquities Act power that might achieve the same goals with less blowback. As @Tater Head notes, there are some really good examples out there of stakeholders coming together to build a shared vision of how wilderness should be protected and used. It's not easy, and not always possible, but a president (or interior secretary) can use the Antiquities Act as a threat to drive progress and eventual decision-making on trade offs.

Also, @Nick I used to worked on Capitol Hill. Agree that it is much more dysfunctional now than it used to be. However, it just takes one or two "bad" elections and the Antiquities Act could be gone (or heavily restricted).
 
Nick said:
That's an interesting point. I guess what it makes me wonder is, what really is a monument? It's clearly not the same as wilderness and as can be seen in the GSENM, it doesn't stop things like grazing and motor sports. Anyone know? I suppose I could google, but that would require extra reading. :sleep:
Click to expand...

Cherry picked From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Monument_(United_States)
A National Monument in the United States is a protected area that is similar to a National Park except that the President of the United States can declare an area of the United States to be a National Monument without the approval of Congress. However, areas within and extending beyond national parks, monuments, and national forests can be part of wilderness areas, which have an even greater degree of protection than a national park would alone....

The Antiquities Act of 1906 resulted from concerns about protecting mostly prehistoric Native American ruins and artifacts (collectively termed "antiquities") on federal lands in the American West.[citation needed] The Act authorized permits for legitimate archaeological investigations and penalties for taking or destroying antiquities without permission. Additionally, it authorized the President to proclaim "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest" as national monuments, "the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."[
 
Mike Yang said:
It seems to me that there are ways to wield the Antiquities Act power that might achieve the same goals with less blowback. As @Tater Head notes, there are some really good examples out there of stakeholders coming together to build a shared vision of how wilderness should be protected and used. It's not easy, and not always possible, but a president (or interior secretary) can use the Antiquities Act as a threat to drive progress and eventual decision-making on trade offs.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was also ecstatic when Grand Staircase was made a monument, but I got to know a guy in Kanab whose family lived there for 4 generations and he had a different point of view, which really filled out the picture for me. GSENM created the job he had, but he wasn't happy with the way it was rolled out. Getting all the stakeholders on board before any action is taken is definitely preferable and can avoid a lot of the issues and resentment that can affect future designations.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that any one group of people have all the answers. What we need is to find a balance that works for most everyone. I can remember as a kid balancing eggs on there end. It took a lot of work and was excruciatingly frustrating. More times than not would it tip over but we would try again and again until we figured it out. I think that if all interested parties work together we could find that balance. There are proven models out there.Now I will let you in on my secret to balancing eggs on there ends HOT GLUE...
images.jpeg
 
Lumping Federally designated Wilderness Areas and National Monuments together is confusing. They are completely different, management-wise. Wilderness Areas will not be turned back no matter how many cuckcoo tea partiers are in Congress. They are here to stay, it would take a HUGE effort to overturn. I don't think its ever happened, once designated they are permanent. This is the best protection we have for our public lands. Hands off, human powered recreation only.
National Monuments are multi-use. They should always involve local input, but in the case of the GSENM the decision was made from over 2000 miles away. I'm glad it did get designated but it didn't do the Antiquities Act any favors as far as future designations in Utah, it just set the stage for anger and hostility. I don't think this is the best way to go about it, but it has saved millions of acres of land from being chopped up/mined/roaded out/abused. NM's also bring in money, recreation and eco-tourism are the future for a lot of these places (Southern Appalachia is having an identity crisis...mountain top removal or look to the future to save whats left and figure out a new economy other than coal and destroying the environment). The extractive industries are working a finite resource, not infinite. Time to get visionary.
The sagebrush rebels are back in full force trying to do everything they can to take over public lands in Utah and let the state manage them. Makes for an interesting debate for sure. Personally I tend to side with the argument that public lands are just that...for the public. Everyone. Keep 'em federal, its not perfect but the potential for abuse and short-sightedness is high. Some areas need to be managed with a more balanced approach, others should be set aside and left alone (Wilderness).

I think the future of public lands management is the National Conservation Area. I worked closely on the McInnis Canyons NCA as it was being fought over in Colorado years ago. Designations such as Wilderness, National Monument, ACEC's and a host of other acronyms were thrown out. Eventually all the sides came together and balance was achieved. Not everyone agrees with it, but its multi-use and all users have a piece. Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, world class mountain biking, OHV areas, grazing, boating, hunting...a lot of groups came to the table.
This kind of collaboration needs to happen more. Whether it can work in Utah, who knows. There is a very large, loud population there that is so irrationally anti-fed it might be the case that nothing will work, and the Antiquities Act is the only option left.
One thing that always bothered me about the "McInnis" Canyons NCA is the name change...Scott McInnis was very anti-public lands protection and didn't support setting much of this area aside for permanent protecetion. Once it was a done deal, he got his name on it. Ah, politicians.
 
DAA said:
Environmental activists always seem to be saying that anyone who does not agree with them simply isn't smart enough to take part in the conversation.
- DAA
Click to expand...

Let me add to this just a little... From my POV and opinion, IF you are not willing to actively listen to all sides of the agrument and then objectivly come to a compromise that will benifit all parites involved, then YES, absolutly you are not smart enough to take place in the conversation.

And that disconnect, in my opinion, comes when Grandpa worked his life to get his 200 acres of farm land, passes it down to dad who fights to keep control of that land to run the farm, then that 3rd generation farm boy has little interest in running the family farm, so when the local land conservation group comes in he agrees to what ever they set as the terms, say 100 acres of land to be sold or donated for reforestation or other conservation use and that no farm animals will be allowed on. Now what the farm boy was not told was that this local group has already surveyed the land and choosen the center 100 acres that will now split his farm in two and cut him off from access to crops or grazing land. Now that farm boy has a kid who is interested in running the family farm, and now the damage has been done. Now that 4th generation has a whole new battle on their hands, one they will likely not win and give them a bad taste toward anyone who speaks out for land protection thus starting he said//she said battles and unwillingness to compromise for the greater good of all to use and access the land.

Is this scenerio a little far fetched, maybe, but I am willing to bet it is a lot closer than you are willing to admit or think. Point in case, look at how we as a new and expanding country took land from the native americans that were here before us.

So who is smart enough to take part in the conversation? Any one with an objective opinion toward the subject of that converstaion and is willing to actively listen to all sides and contribute to the greater good. If all you will do is throw out wild and unfounded accusations, then no you are not smart enought to take part.

Just my thought on the that particular subject in this thead. @DAA, I quoted you because of that part of your post, not because I am saying you are wrong or I agree or disagree with you. I pulled this part of your post to expand my thoughts and opinion on the particular subject and you happend to have said it. I ment to add this to my previous post, but forgot to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top