NBC News on Federalizing Land Ownership

[Bean Counter]

" SALT LAKE CITY — President Barack Obama designated two national monuments Wednesday at sites in Utah and Nevada that have become key flashpoints over use of public land in the U.S. West, marking the administration's latest move to protect environmentally sensitive areas in its final days.....

It's a blow for state Republican leaders and many rural residents who say it will add another layer of unnecessary federal control and close the area to new energy development, a common refrain in the battle over use of the American West's vast open spaces. Utah's attorney general vowed to sue...

 Opponents agreed the area is a natural treasure worth preserving but worried the designation would restrict oil and gas development as well as residents' ability to camp, bike, hike and gather wood.

New mining or energy development will be banned, but existing operations won't be affected, federal officials said. Wood and plant gathering is still allowed as well as hunting, fishing and other recreation, they said..."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-names-utah-nevada-monuments-despite-gop-opposition-n701046

[bigtex]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

[huntnphool]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

 Then what was the point?

[JimmyHoffa]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

 Then what was the point?

Makes Obozo and Dems seem like they are protectors of the earth....political capital.

[bigtex]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

 Then what was the point?

Monuments basically just add a level of protection in that they basically allow what is currently allowed and don't allow future new uses. There are Monuments with oil and gas drilling because it occured there before.

Monuments designated by the president can only be current federal lands, or lands that are to be donated, such as the one designated this year in Maine. So a monument designation doesn't instantly condemn state or private lands.

[bigtex]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

 Then what was the point?

Makes Obozo and Dems seem like they are protectors of the earth....political capital.

Nearly every president since Teddy Roosevelt has designated monuments.

I don't know if oil and gas are drilled in this area currently, but if they aren't then this monument designation then halts any move to allow such use. And that's been one big reason some greenies wanted this done.

It should be noted the Congressman for this area tried to get a National Conservation Area for this area passed thru Congress but it went nowhere. NCAs are kind of a watered down monument in that they provide protection but allow future new uses.

[olyguy79]

Ya they were already federal lands. Monuments bring more tourism and infrastructure. They can be controversial in some places because they stop new/future uses which in most cases refer to oil and gas exploration. We've had two new monuments proclaimed in WA in the past 20 years some of you may even hunt them..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bean Counter]

I don't know if oil and gas are drilled in this area currently, but if they aren't then this monument designation then halts any move to allow such use. And that's been one big reason some greenies wanted this done.

And that alone is reason enough to oppose it. I have hunted Mack Energy Corp's oil fields in New Mexico and its some of the best plains hunting for mule deer I've ever seen in the great Western U.S.

BTW, access was free, to all the alarmists 

[huntnphool]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

 Then what was the point?

Monuments basically just add a level of protection in that they basically allow what is currently allowed and don't allow future new uses. There are Monuments with oil and gas drilling because it occured there before.

Monuments designated by the president can only be current federal lands, or lands that are to be donated, such as the one designated this year in Maine. So a monument designation doesn't instantly condemn state or private lands.

 So basically trying to tie Trumps hands from allowing drilling?

[Bob33]

There is strong opposition to it by many.

Chaffetz stated in part:

“President Obama’s unilateral decision to invoke the Antiquities Act in Utah politicizes a long-simmering conflict. This unfortunate act threatens to further inflame controversies that were near resolution. The midnight monument is a slap in the face to the people of Utah, attempting to silence the voices of those who will bear the heavy burden it imposes. Furthermore, the decision is a major break with protocol previously followed by this administration. It does not have the support of the Governor, a single member of the state’s Congressional delegation, nor any local elected officials or state legislators who represent the area.

http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/

[Stein]

I can't really think of a national park or monument where I look out and say "man, it would be better if they were drilling and mining the heck out of that chunk of land."

[jmscon]

Wouldn't the designation of a monument keep that land from getting handed over to state control?

[lokidog]

I can't really think of a national park or monument where I look out and say "man, it would be better if they were drilling and mining the heck out of that chunk of land."

 

I know not a popular opinion around here....

[Bean Counter]

I can't really think of a forest or desert where I look out and say "Man, it would be better if more control and decisions made about this land were taken away from the elected official who lives in my district that I know personally and given to unelected bureaucrats in Washington D.C. and national legislators from Taxachussetts, New Yawk, and the Urine Colored State."   

[wsmnut]

 

I can't really think of a national park or monument where I look out and say "man, it would be better if they were drilling and mining the heck out of that chunk of land."

 

[JODakota]

It was already federal lands.. Just undesignated USFS & BLM lands. As the article states, whatever was currently allowed will continue to be allowed.

 Then what was the point?

Monuments basically just add a level of protection in that they basically allow what is currently allowed and don't allow future new uses. There are Monuments with oil and gas drilling because it occured there before.

Monuments designated by the president can only be current federal lands, or lands that are to be donated, such as the one designated this year in Maine. So a monument designation doesn't instantly condemn state or private lands.

 So basically trying to tie Trumps hands from allowing drilling?

There is more then enough land for Trump to drill, and I will be a part of it, come on Jan 20th!