Post by: Bean Counter on December 29, 2016, 01:47:25 PM
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
Post by: bigtex on December 29, 2016, 07:10:32 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2016, 07:23:36 PM
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?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 29, 2016, 07:29:46 PM
Makes Obozo and Dems seem like they are protectors of the earth....political capital.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?
Post by: bigtex on December 29, 2016, 07:29:56 PM
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.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 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.
Post by: bigtex on December 29, 2016, 07:33:59 PM
:yeah:Makes Obozo and Dems seem like they are protectors of the earth....political capital.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?
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.
Post by: olyguy79 on December 29, 2016, 07:43:28 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bean Counter on December 29, 2016, 08:04:28 PM
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 :rolleyes:
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2016, 08:11:34 PM
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.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 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?
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2016, 09:57:23 PM
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/ (http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/)
Post by: Stein on January 02, 2017, 11:44:01 AM
Post by: jmscon on January 02, 2017, 12:19:02 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 02, 2017, 12:32:35 PM
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."
:yeah:
I know not a popular opinion around here....
Post by: Bean Counter on January 02, 2017, 01:41:31 PM
Post by: wsmnut on January 02, 2017, 03:16:33 PM
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."
:yeah:
Post by: JODakota on January 02, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
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.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 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!