Utah Wildlife Forum banner
21 - 40 of 56 Posts
Everything is about picking sides for you. Everything. You haven't had an original thought in years.
I just wonder, V, if you were aware of the proposed transfer of 100K acres of public land to SITLA when you started this thread. You linked the article, which isn't that long, so it was hard to miss. Yet, you chose a title that indicates support of the legislation, or at least the "process". A more complete discussion of monument designations would include that the Antiquities Act was enacted precisely because the legislative process failed miserably to protect our antiquities. S, I challenge the assertion in the title of this thread.

To say that our Utah politicians' introduction of a land grab bill is superior to a President exercising his power under the Antiquities Act to designate monuments is to endorse a process by which locals can attempt to assert local control over federal lands in order to enable exploitation by their cronies. Is that your position? Do you think this legislation is the best way to manage our public lands? Which is better, to leave public lands under federal control or to give those lands to a private entity required to maximize revenue by any means possible from said lands? Should we trust SITLA to allow public access to those lands in perpetuity? Whaddayathink?
 
Discussion starter · #23 ·
Yes, I knew the 100k acres was part of this legislation when I posted this. I do know how to read. I can’t say that I’m sure you can say the same, however. My first post, the original of the thread, answers every one of your other allegations, pontifications about my belief, and insincere questions. And it actually does it very clearly.
 
Yes, I knew the 100k acres was part of this legislation when I posted this. I do know how to read. I can't say that I'm sure you can say the same, however. My first post, the original of the thread, answers every one of your other allegations, pontifications about my belief, and insincere questions. And it actually does it very clearly.
This is your last post:

Still not sure if I support the result. There are way too many unknowns, such as the question I asked before about where are the 100k acres, etc. When I know all the actual details, I can make an educated decision. But if others want to simply pick sides before they even know, that seems to be how things work these days, so be my guest. I'll prefer to become educated on the details and use the cranium God blessed me with, though. I may very well end up not liking it, but I'm not going to assume I will when I don't know.

You have not answered my questions, not clearly or otherwise. Do you support transferring federal lands to SITLA? Yes or no? Most others on this board don't seem keen on the idea.
 
A more complete discussion of monument designations would include that the Antiquities Act was enacted precisely because the legislative process failed miserably to protect our antiquities.
The legislative process did not fail miserably. The Antiques Act shows the correct process of the legislative branch. No branch of gov't can do anything properly by fiat acts of power.

A simple POLS 101 course will teach that.
 
The legislative process did not fail miserably. The Antiques Act shows the correct process of the legislative branch. No branch of gov't can do anything properly by fiat acts of power.

A simple POLS 101 course will teach that.
You need a history lesson. The AA was enacted because Congress was unable to curb looting in Mesa Verde and surrounding areas.
 
You really don't understand the difference between a process and a result? .
I must be dumb...because I still can't figure out how the process is really any different. With the designations of BE and the GSNM, the President used the Antiquities Act. With this new "process" repubs are using Congress. Has the public been involved in either process? Are both "processes" legal and within the political powers of those who carried the "processes" through? Yup...so, how are they different? Tell me again.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
W2U,

I have been clear in my position that I support the constitutional powers of each branch of government. These types of actions are reserved in constitutional power to Congress. That is why it took congress passing a law (the antiquities act) to delegate its authority to the executive. I am not, and have never disputed the AA gives a president certain powers, I’ve simply said I disagree with it.

So it is my position, and the constitution’s, that if a national monument should be delegated, it SHOULD be an act of Congress to do it. Hence, the PROCESS.

This really isn’t that difficult of a principle to understand, I think you’re just getting caught up in wanting a fight. I’ve straight up said multiple times that we may end up seeing this the same way once I can get all the details, so not really any need to argue just to argue. The process is a monument being created by legislative action. Pretty simple principle. Hope that helps clear it up.
 
It doesn't matter at all who, how, for whom, to whom, by who, what agency does what, legislative, executive order, military coup, blah, blah blah...it is this simple...if you take land that is currently owned by the US Government(the people!!!) and transfer it to Sitla by any means what so ever...it will no longer be PUBLIC and most likely will be sold to and deeded into the private land pool. NO TRESPASSING!

To sit and argue about the process is ridicules.
 
I realize that we are now in the mandatory insults phase of this monuments thread, but I have one question. Since part of the action sought is for a transfer of Federal land, and the Constitution requires that Congress has the sole authority over lands (disposition), isn't it mandatory that this legislation be pursued in this manner? If the Utah delegation tried to achieve the same ends through the Trump administration using the Antiquities act and executive order, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional. If the politicians only wanted a new monument at Cleveland/Lloyd, Trump would very likely give it to them in a heartbeat.

Regardless of "process", things seem to come back to the 100,000 acres.

TOTP!
 
I realize that we are now in the mandatory insults phase of this monuments thread, but I have one question. Since part of the action sought is for a transfer of Federal land, and the Constitution requires that Congress has the sole authority over lands (disposition), isn't it mandatory that this legislation be pursued in this manner? If the Utah delegation tried to achieve the same ends through the Trump administration using the Antiquities act and executive order, it would quickly be declared unconstitutional. If the politicians only wanted a new monument at Cleveland/Lloyd, Trump would very likely give it to them in a heartbeat.

Regardless of "process", things seem to come back to the 100,000 acres.

TOTP!
Yes, stealing federal land requires an act of Congress. Preserving public lands only requires a President with an interest in conservation. Wish we had one.
 
Discussion starter · #33 ·
To sit and argue about the process is ridicules.
Except, I'm the OP. The entire purpose of the post was the process. It is others that have taken it other places. So take that up with them, not me. Of course, I do not expect that to happen. That would require actual critical thinking, and that ain't happening here.
 
Except, I'm the OP. The entire purpose of the post was the process. It is others that have taken it other places. So take that up with them, not me. Of course, I do not expect that to happen. That would require actual critical thinking, and that ain't happening here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla
You need a history lesson. The AA was enacted because Congress was unable to curb looting in Mesa Verde and surrounding areas.
Nope. Congress does not enforce the law, the Executive branch does. Congress writes the law, which they did with the AA.

Try to keep up. Before 1906, there wasn't much in place to protect antiquities. The AA was the first major legislative leap when the need arose and the general public became aware of the problem. Not long before that, there were still bounties paid for not just artifacts, but people parts too.

And FYI, Chaco Canyon is what lit the fire, a place a mere 50 miles from my home.
 
Nope. Congress does not enforce the law, the Executive branch does. Congress writes the law, which they did with the AA.

Try to keep up. Before 1906, there wasn't much in place to protect antiquities. The AA was the first major legislative leap when the need arose and the general public became aware of the problem. Not long before that, there were still bounties paid for not just artifacts, but people parts too.

And FYI, Chaco Canyon is what lit the fire, a place a mere 50 miles from my home.
I didn't say that Congress enforces the law, I said that Congress hadn't protected the antiquities in the southwest, meaning they hadn't passed legislation doing so. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps the "process" of Congress passing laws to protect all the different areas worthy of protection is too cumbersome to be practical. From the Wiki:

The Act was intended to allow the President to set aside certain valuable public natural areas as park and conservation land. The 1906 act stated that it was intended for: "... the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest." These areas are given the title of "National Monuments." It also allows the President to reserve or accept private lands for that purpose. The aim is to protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities. With this act, this can be done much more quickly than going through the Congressional process of creating a National Park.

Not only is this process quicker, but in many cases some areas may not have been protected at all. For instance, there was a great deal of local resistance to the designation of the Grand Canyon NM at the time from locals who wanted to exploit it. That's why I disagree with V that the current actions of Hatch and Curtis is the better process.

And yes, you are correct, Chaco Canyon was the final straw leading to the AA. I misspoke, don't know why I said Mesa Verde, except that they both contain ruins from prehistoric Native American peoples. I'd like to visit Chaco someday. My wife and I were talking about a road trip to MV the day before yesterday. Took delivery of a new hunting/fishing rig last week and need to put some miles on it before I can tow my boat.
 
Usually don't get involved in these type of threads due to the inevitable vitriol that ensues. However, I do agree with the OP on his point of this being done the way it should. As to the 'results and meat and potatoes' of the bill, that's another story entirely, in MHO...

I am getting a bit senile of late, so perhaps that's what it takes to understand the simple initial point the OP was intending....;-)
 
Usually don't get involved in these type of threads due to the inevitable vitriol that ensues. However, I do agree with the OP on his point of this being done the way it should. As to the 'results and meat and potatoes' of the bill, that's another story entirely, in MHO...

I am getting a bit senile of late, so perhaps that's what it takes to understand the simple initial point the OP was intending....;-)
Clearly, we have a difference of opinion. Once again, the Antiquities Act was enacted by Congress, which in so doing exercised their constitutional power to pass legislation that empowers the President to protect areas described in the Act. The President then acts in the interest of all American citizens to protect the areas that qualify. In so doing, he receives input from all stakeholders and thus has a broad view of all considerations regarding any specific area. In designating BENM, Obama oversaw an lengthy, exhaustive, open process inclusive of all interest groups. While some may not agree with the designation, I believe he acted in the interests of the greater common good and all American citizens.

In contrast, Hatch and Curtis followed what process? Town halls? Meetings with all interested parties? Conservation groups, including national groups? Outdoor recreation groups? Hunting and fishing interests? Introducing land grab bills like this do not serve the interests of all Americans, it serves SITLA and those who would benefit from the land transfer. This is to be expected when local politicians act on behalf of their donors, as only local politicians will introduce such bills, and only at the behest of their donors. It may sound like a more inclusive process, but that is not the case. Most locals won't benefit from the current bill, outdoorsmen don't benefit, visitors from around the country and the world don't benefit, local tourism businesses don't benefit, you and I don't benefit.

So again, I disagree that this process which favors a few interested in exploitation is superior to the President exercising the powers delegated to him under the Antiquities Act. Anybody who says different is selling something.
 
Discussion starter · #40 ·
So I was looking over a draft of this bill. It was not the final product, and I haven’t compared it to the final product yet. But if I’m reading this correctly, the 100k acres is more of a land trade than a land grab. I want to see the final bill and study it more closely to be sure, but it appears that the 100k acres is making up for SITLA land already held within the new monuments and wilderness areas being designated by this bill. They would be swapping other federal land to make up for making the current SITLA land useless. So potentially not a single lost acre from “public land” in this? I don’t know, still trying to figure out the nitty gritty here.

Standby, lots to process and learn here still. But if that ends up being the case, I’ll be happy with myself for waiting for details before complaining about something I don’t understand. Still not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing yet. Hopefully more information is forthcoming so I can make an educated decision.
 
21 - 40 of 56 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top