National Monuments Undone??

[RedRoxx44]

According to the local Tucson news 3 republican reps have signed off on having the designation removed from Grand Canyon Parashant, Ironwood National Monument, Vermillion Cliffs and the Sonoran Desert Monument. These are up for review by the current administration. Besides the cost of managing wonder if the rancher/ miner interests are at play here.

[hikeaz]

But the area of the 4 monuments being targed is well over 2/3 of the total area of all National Monuments in Arizona (4 monuments = a bit over 2 million acres; remaining 14 = well under 1 million--if someone wants to add up all those areas, go for it).

Which in and of itself signifies that those four monuments are probably bloated and should be reviewed.

Agreed.. bloated. It makes good press to set aside these lands, but the elephant in the room is the a $19 billion backlog of deferred maintenance on these lands.

"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 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"

The Antiquities Act was enacted in 1906. It is widely accepted that it was established for the most part to stop wholesale looting of native american ruins/graves, etc.

In fact the first paragraph says:

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. "

[flagscott]

@hikeaz I don't have time to dig into case law, but it looks like your legal theory is wrong.

Astute readers might wonder how areas such as the Grand Canyon meet the definition of “the smallest area compatible” in the act. The key is that in many cases, “scientific interest” can justify protection of an area such as the canyon. That interpretation was upheld in Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920).

https://www.law360.com/articles/864817/ ... act-legacy

[nonot]

Besides protecting the land from development, and in theory, preventing asshattery of the generic publich (by having a government body that has some type of powers of enforcing protection of the land), what stands to be gained or lost by removing the NM designation?

I'd hate to see these areas become like camelback or grand canyon village where you have human development and backyards right up to the edge of a publicly protected space.

[Al_HikesAZ]

@hikeaz I don't have time to dig into case law, but it looks like your legal theory is wrong.

Astute readers might wonder how areas such as the Grand Canyon meet the definition of “the smallest area compatible” in the act. The key is that in many cases, “scientific interest” can justify protection of an area such as the canyon. That interpretation was upheld in Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920).

https://www.law360.com/articles/864817/ ... act-legacy

Grand Canyon is a National Park, not a National Monument. It was established by an Act of Congress under a different Law. We are talking about National Monuments, a completely different issue. National Monuments are created by an
Executive Order by the President not by an Act of Congress.

[flagscott]

@hikeaz I don't have time to dig into case law, but it looks like your legal theory is wrong.

Astute readers might wonder how areas such as the Grand Canyon meet the definition of “the smallest area compatible” in the act. The key is that in many cases, “scientific interest” can justify protection of an area such as the canyon. That interpretation was upheld in Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920).

https://www.law360.com/articles/864817/ ... act-legacy

Grand Canyon is a National Park, not a National Monument. It was established by an Act of Congress under a different Law. We are talking about National Monuments, a completely different issue. National Monuments are created by an
Executive Order by the President not by an Act of Congress.

Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).

https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park

[Alston_Neal]

I'm willing to trade the Southern Sonoran Desert National Monument (south of 238) for Paul "Bundy Buddy" Gosar. This will allow us to keep Margies Cove.

[Hansenaz]

Personally I have more faith in the people who did the original designation work than I do the current reviewers.

[Al_HikesAZ]

Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).

https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park

Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument.

[Al_HikesAZ]

Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).

https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park

Technically, Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument. Otherwise Roosevelt would not have been able to designate it as a National Monument.

[flagscott]

Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).

https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park

Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument.

Um, okay, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Any public land can become a national monument. And before Roosevelt stepped in, there was apparently a lot of development happening (rule about what people could do on public lands were not enforced much back in the day).

[Al_HikesAZ]

Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).

https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park

Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument.

Um, okay, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Any public land can become a national monument. And before Roosevelt stepped in, there was apparently a lot of development happening (rule about what people could do on public lands were not enforced much back in the day).

It had to be public land before it could be a National Monument. National Parks are created under an Act of Congress not under Executive Order.

[Sredfield]

@Hansenaz
Amen, with a hallelujah chorus.

[rwstorm]

@Sredfield
I second that Shawn.

[flagscott]

Well, in the tradition of honesty and openness that has characterized the trump administration so far, Zinke has finished his recommendations and sent them to the president but will not release the report publicly. But the Washington Post says that Bears Ears, Cascade-Siskiyou, and Grand Staircase-Escalante are on the "shrink" list.

Let's see...Bear's Ear might have oil. Cascade-Siskiyou has lots of areas that could be logged. And GSENM has a big coal deposit. I'm guessing that any monuments that aren't recommended for cuts probably don't have any lumber, minable metals, or fossil fuels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 97acd0a69c

BTW, as above, I'd like anyone who thinks these monuments are too big to tell me where in the Antiquities Act it says that presidents can shrink previously established monuments. If you think that previous designations are too big, then there is a well-established, constitutional mechanism for contesting illegal activities by the government: sue and let the courts decide*. There is no legal authority for the executive branch to shrink monuments, and I expect that the courts will find the same in short order.

The saddest thing about all of this is that there are a million things Zinke could be focusing on to make public lands better managed, and he is wasting taxpayer money on this crap. Why does the party that claims to be fiscally responsible keep wasting our money? This is going to go straight to court, which means that we'll be wasting taxpayer funds on lawyers salaries and judges' time, too.

*and as above, there have been court cases where people challenged monument designations as being too big, and the challengers lost

[amy1300]

According to High Country News, at least 2 national monuments (including Grand Canyon!) have been shrunk in the past.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/49.14/monumen ... -permanent

I suspect that it will be a while before the issue gets ironed out.

[flagscott]

According to High Country News, at least 2 national monuments (including Grand Canyon!) have been shrunk in the past.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/49.14/monumen ... -permanent

I suspect that it will be a while before the issue gets ironed out.

Meh, those changes were under Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. There was no environmental movement to speak of back then, and there were no legal challenges the changes. Things are very different today.

And when the main legal "authority" the anti-monument folks cite to support their position is torture apologist John Yoo, well, that's just sad. He's the sort of person that will twist any piece of legislation to justify whatever ends he wants.

[Tough_Boots]

Someone actually reads High Country News?

[chumley]

Someone actually reads High Country News?

Apparently! From wiki:

According to a review in The Christian Science Monitor, the paper "is closely read in congressional offices and state houses, as well as in the government agencies that control most of the rural West. It has broken important stories subsequently picked up by the New York Times and other national media." Former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt described the paper as "the only place where you can really know what's happening in the rest of the West."

[rwstorm]

I have been a fan/reader of HCN for decades.

[flagscott]

I have been a fan/reader of HCN for decades.

Ditto. I'd have a lifetime subscription if such a thing existed.

(Of course, I'm perpetually 6 months behind, but I read every article.)