In Maine the Katahdin Water and Woods (or woods and water?) Monument was created, I think largely if not exclusively from donated land. There was a general hue and cry from conservatives, not really over anything specific, just that it basically takes the natural resources out of play for future economic exploitation. Not sure why exploiting it as a tourist attraction is so frowned upon when the traditional exploitation for logging seems to be slowly but surely dying, and wasn't going on anyway (I don't think) as it wasn't owned by a paper company.

Good job on not answering the question!!

We'll find out soon. Solar energy will get cheaper over time, that's just the nature of the beast. Technology and manufacturing efficiency is steadily improving and I see no reason for that to change anytime soon.

As far as China goes, they are probably going to be the leader in electric car production and use. It's incredibly hard to license a petro car in China. But electric cars don't have those restrictions. I'm not sure why you think they are going to use more petro cars when everything their government is doing points in the opposite direction.

Read an NPR piece into it. Basically the same thing. President can designate monuments and size and can remove them completely but not reduce. Antiquities Act has a clause that says it should be as little land as possible to protect Native American artifacts, nothing on conservation (Trump's argument). Law passed in the 70's restricted consolidation of monuments up to Congress (Patagonia's argument).

So if this is all accurate, Trump really should have gone through the courts or Congress not Antiquities act.

Ever gone into the wilderness and ran across a closed gate with a sign saying "No you can't do ......." that is what is the issue. The designation severely limits access and activities in these beautiful, remote places that idiots like Patagonia want closed off to the general public.

This simple, local analogy is why the hell can I not go swimming in this big lake, because its under the control of government that limits usage.

Not having it in non-governmental hands doesn't necessarily help with that. The locals didn't seem none to happy when the private individual limited access to the lands that the paper companies use to let them use for ATVs and hunting.

It was actually interesting to the see people who usually take the "it's you land do with it whatever you want" line twisting in the wind when it impacted their use of the land. Suddenly private land wasn't so sacrosanct.

Yet you keep acting/implying like Obama invented it, when its use had already ramped up dramatically the administration before that. I get what you're saying, but you'd enjoy more credibility if you didn't just seem to start objecting when it was the last guy you didn't like.

As if the locally highest bidder would somehow grant the public greater access? That sure as shit hasn't been the case anywhere around me, as former fed/state holdings have gotten sold away and either logged to the point that they're no longer worth a crap for recreation or fenced/gated off (or both).

As if the locally highest bidder would somehow grant the public greater access? //

Well we can just take a look at what the rich guys that bought all those Malibu houses with public access next to them. The closed it off for their own personal use and spent millions keeping it that way while it was worked out in the courts. To think any private entity is going to provide the best use for the most people and in some way that preserves the nature of the place, well show me where that happens.


And just read a story about a dot com billionaire up north that has blocked public beach access on a lake, and is just paying the huge fines as they are pennies to him. $15k a day, no problem, he should run out of money in about a 100 years or so..

I wasn’t happy when Bush was doing it, I wasn’t happy when Obama did it and I’m not happy that Trump is doing it.

Any questions?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

The way to quickly solve that is with compounding fines.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I think the problem many have with this is the scale. GWB massively increased the amount of land a POTUS had designated (or "grabbed" depending on your POV), but BHO designated close to twice the area of every president in the history of the US combined.
-
http://static2.businessinsider.com/...esidentacreage02.png

Good data. Thanks for the insight. That is the kind of thing I’ve been looking for to help in the explanation. Still not certain I agree with the reversal but if these areas being reduced are in that portion I understand a bit better.

Obama did not expand Grand Staircase as far as I am aware or can google it. Couple people have said that on this thread. It was a Clinton thing. This NM is being thrown lumped in with the Bears Ears and it is a different issue politically and even why is is a NM in the first place. I have been to three completely different areas in GSE NM that are going to be affected when you actually look at the maps.

Yes the cheaper it gets to fly the more people fly. Add in all the people in China who start to fly and ......

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Here is a Statement from the Secretary of Interior as to what was done. Seems reasonable to me -- I will look forward to reading counterpoints with informed arguments as to why what is described as a more tailored managment approach is either not correct not effective.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

That doesn’t really say what the excess land coming out of the National Monument designation is going to be though. It only mentions the remaining monument land and the commission overseeing that reduced portion. I don’t disagree that the prior national monument designations were overreaching. But it still doesn’t answer the underlying question of the planned use of the rest of the land.

If it stays in federal protection, under what designation - grassland, National Park, or wildlife refuge? I believe that those require congressional approval. If the excess land surrounding the Monuments are returning to State Trust land, then they MAY be reopened to public access and non-motorized travel. That will make recreational users happy.

However, it may also be available for timber, mineral, and grazing leases. If that is the case, then access by the public for recreation conflicts and more than likely would be restricted.

What you don't see in the Patagonia lawsuit or CNN is that several Republican lawmakers are trying to establish a national park in the area of Bears Ears in order to protect it beyond execute overreach (er, executive order).

Google the Stewart national park effort that he proposed several weeks ago.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Of course it doesn't. It was short summary statement.

There is no short answer to "what the excess land . . . is going to be." That is a lot of land. Understanding the answer requires basic understanding of federal land management law. Comprehensive articles discussing this issue are being written. They will be available in a few months to a year in environmental law journals. But what you are asking for is no secret. All the information is in the public domain. You'll have to research though. You can start here and here.

A general answer to your question of "planned use of the rest of the land" is that lands now excluded from monument designation will managed by the federal agency (e.g. BLM, Forest Service) that managed the lands prior to the monument designation. (That is my informed judgment as I cannot see how by EO Trump could change the prior land management designation.)

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Someone stated earlier in the thread that the land was previously State Trust land and that it was returning to them. Which would seem to jive with the statements and comments from the administration about locals knowing how to best manage the land vs Washington bureaucrats.

Why isn't anyone discussing the creation of three new National Monuments, which are far overdue in their own right. Or are we only allowed to criticize the administration?


"In the report, Zinke also finalized his recommendations to create three new national monuments: at Kentucky's Camp Nelson, a Civil War training site for African American soldiers; at the home of Medgar Evers, a civil rights activist who was assassinated by a white supremacist, in Jackson, Miss., and at the Badger-Two Medicine area in Zinke's home state of Montana."

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Someone made a very general statement about a very large and complex issue. Not surprising as this is an issue where most folks here, and elsewhere, are likely to have an opinion without much knowledge.

Bears Ear was 1.35 million acres. Of that 109,000 was State Trust. (Note, the Feds owed that much land to the Utah trust.)

Note further that untangling this will take years. Lots of questions will need to be answered, many by courts I'm guessing. Not so much for Bears Ear, as it has been less than a year. But Grand Staircase-Escalante has been about 20 years. The Feds have already paid Utah for the taking of the State Trust Land in that case. So, for instance, what happens to that land. I'm certain also, especially for GSE, there will be all sorts of land management issues as the land returns to prior use and governance. Further, this will be in the courts for a while before it is a done deal.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Ok thanks for the info