I know, I know, it's Fox "news"

[teotwaki]

The attachment (see link in my previous post) does not mention any specific threat to the Modoc Plateau. It just describes it as 'spectacular and remote lands', abundant wildlife, archeological treasures, Skedaddle Mountains, etc.

Who besides the loggers would object to monument status?

The rules for a National Monument are not the same as for National Parks or Wilderness. What is allowed, or not, may depend on who is administering them. For BLM land they are probably someplace between general BLM land and Wilderness Study Areas. Possibly closer to wildlife refuges.

Monument today, locked up tomorrow.

Saguaro National Park used to be............ yes Saguaro National Monument.

Zion National Park was originally established in 1909 as Mukuntuweap National Monument. And it grew even bigger in 1956 when it absorbed what was then Zion National Monument.

Joshua Tree National Park was proclaimed a National Monument in 1936 and redesignated a National Park in 1994.

They wait about 50 to 60 years to lull you into complacency then pull the rug out, whispering into your ear "Oh, those bad, bad Loggers".

I'm no logger and I object to sneaky underhanded ways to cheat the process.
The ends do not justify the means. Don't drink the Kool-Aid being offered to you folks.

 

[ttora4runner]

Shouldn't the states and its people have a voice in these type's of issues where it affects the state that they live in? Shouldn't the federal government only step-in when the states fail to manage these area's?

Shouldn't we learn to manage what we have first before locking up any more land? I'm all for perserving what we have but do it in a responsible manner and only after all the facts/details have been gathered and people's voices have been heard before acting.

 

[paulj]

Monument today, locked up tomorrow. ....

You can add Bryce Canyon to your list of (horrible?) locked up places that once were Monuments. I had to wait till the FS Red Rocks visitor center to take my dog on walk among the rock formations.

Arches NM (1929 -71)

Is Canyonlands the only NP that wasn't once at Monument?

http://www.nps.gov/cany/historyculture/stewartudall.htm

Canyonlands was one of the national parks created during this time. On a flight over this area in the early 1960s, then Bureau of Reclamation Chief Floyd Dominy showed Udall where he wanted to build the "next" big dam: just below the Confluence of the Colorado and Green rivers. But where Dominy saw a reservior, Stewart Udall saw a national park.

Some relatively well known NM in Utah:
Cedar Breaks (also no dogs ).
Rainbow Bridge NM
Hovenweep NM
Natural Bridges NM

Here's a list of decommisioned National Monuments (14 - some transfered to states, a few turned back to FS or BLM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...National_Park_System#Disbanded_National_Parks

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I think your proving my point, each of these areas exhibited a better back-country experience BEFORE being converted into a tin-camper experience. NM didn't protect any of them, it exploited them. National Parks excalate this even more. Trails like White Rim, Elephant Hill and the Flint Trail are not spectacular because they exist in a National Park, in fact it has nothing to do with that. The National Park just served to limit camping opportunities, close spurs and campgrounds and inhibit certain usergroups, yet the back country experience they offer is not any better than the 'unchartered' federal lands just a few miles to the west in the SR Swell, in fact its worse imo.

Go read what Edward Abbey has to say about Arches before it became a National Park, better yet read what environmentalist Jim Stiles has to say about Moab, Wilderness and National Parks in his book Morphing Moab at the Speed of Greed. I align far more with these 'environmentalists' than the greedy litigous movement that is considered 'environmentalists' of the new age. They have strady grasp on this weathy movement.

As I have said dozens and dozens of times in similar threads. I am for land use limitations, but we just had RMP revisions on 6/11 of our BLM offices in Utah affecting millions of acres in Utah, roads were closed, Wilderness Characteristic lands protected and use defintions altered. The Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association supported the BLM's alternatives despite the spot closures, permit qualifications and use changes. I support Wilderness per the actual definition. Closing a road in the 90's and then calling the land Wilderness because the road isn't being used is not kosher in my view. With each inventory they find more new Wilderness, so where is the issue? Its obviously not dwindling...

 

[teotwaki]

You can add Bryce Canyon to your list of (horrible?) locked up places that once were Monuments. --blah-blah-blah [/url]

More red herrings thrown in to distort my message. You love to carefully insert words like "Horrible" or "bad" or "stripping park status" as if I actually said them somewhere, knowing that few will go back through my messages to see if it is true. I've never ever said anything about reverting any National Park in existence, only that this madness of subversion has to stop.

Let's try this: to emulate you, the ends (of grabbing lands for monuments) justify the means because the means meeting your approval are expedient and justifiably snatch up land by circumventing the voter's wishes in a quick manner. Much the same as if I steal everything that you own and donate it to starving kids in an orphanage. Why wait for a nice, legal, slow fundraiser. Why those po' children might be dead by then!

I know you are intelligent but your underhanded public snipes are tiresome and out of line. At least send it in a PM if you want to practice personal attacks.

 

[Dave Bennett]

...the ends (of grabbing lands for monuments) justify the means because the means meeting your approval are expedient and justifiably snatch up land by circumventing the voter's wishes in a quick manner. Much the same as if I steal everything that you own and donate it to starving kids in an orphanage. Why wait for a nice, legal, slow fundraiser. Why those po' children might be dead by then!...

:coffeedrink:

 

[maXTERRA]

Veiled disparagement towards Fox News?
I am glad they brought to light this document. Thanks for posting.

The ONLY source of news that's not in lockstep and in the pocket of the current administration makes them something other than news???? If all media unquestionably and on blind faith follows to the word of this administration, doesn't that make it propaganda? Question everything!

I didn't see a peep of this mentioned in any of the other networks, and only a few seconds coverage on the local news...

Looking like grand staircase escalante all over again to me.
Going to again close off and over regulate travel to some of the states most beautiful places. I don't hear of any of these expedition-type travelers extolling the virtues of their wonderful remote trips to grand canyon, Bryce, grand staircase and so on.
Going to cram a million people into just a few accesible sites as always in the
name of preservation.

I think it's just phase 1 of the redrocks wilderness bill.

 

[Dave Bennett]

The ONLY source of news that's not in lockstep and in the pocket of the current administration makes them something other than news???? If all media unquestionably and on blind faith follows to the word of this administration, doesn't that make it propaganda? Question everything!

I didn't see a peep of this mentioned in any of the other networks, and only a few seconds coverage on the local news...

Looking like grand staircase escalante all over again to me.
Going to again close off and over regulate travel to some of the states most beautiful places. I don't hear of any of these expedition-type travelers extolling the virtues of their wonderful remote trips to grand canyon, Bryce, grand staircase and so on.
Going to cram a million people into just a few accesible sites as always in the
name of preservation.

I think it's just phase 1 of the redrocks wilderness bill.

x2

 

[paulj]

More red herrings thrown in to distort my message. You love to carefully insert words like "Horrible" or "bad" or "stripping park status" as if I actually said them somewhere, knowing that few will go back through my messages to see if it is true. I've never ever said anything about reverting any National Park in existence, only that this madness of subversion has to stop.
....

Would it have helped if I'd included a smilie? I did put the 'horrible' in parenthesis and include a '?'.

I still don't get the point to the NM -> NP examples. It is not inevitable, and it still requires action by congress. In many of these Utah cases the NP legislation passed decades after the initial Monument declaration. My guess is that with more recent BLM administered monuments, the conversion to NP status is even less likely.

I don't know whether monument status would speed up or slow down Wilderness designations. I can imagine reasons for both outcomes. Monument status might strengthen the hand of those who claim the area already has enough protection). Wilderness legislation remains Congressional game of horse trading.

 

[paulj]

Here's a history of National Monuments from the Park Service. The Wiki article covers much of the same material. The list of Monuments by administration and date is interesting.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/monuments.htm

 

[dzzz]

The ONLY source of news that's not in lockstep and in the pocket of the current administration makes them something other than news???? If all media unquestionably and on blind faith follows to the word of this administration, doesn't that make it propaganda? Question everything!

Paranoid much?

 

[PhulesAU]

Paranoid much?

I'd call it a dose of reality.

 

[Dave Bennett]

I'd call it a dose of reality.

x2

Its funny how it is now the accepted norm to call someone a nut or paranoid etc if they question things and refuse to be led like sheep.

Meanwhile, the herd thunders towards the cliffs...

 

[teotwaki]

Here's a history of National Monuments from the Park Service. The Wiki article covers much of the same material. The list of Monuments by administration and date is interesting.

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/monuments.htm

And lookee who sucked away 21 of them in short order...... must have been some sort of contest smiley----> :drool:

 

[maXTERRA]

Kurt expressed it best in the other parallel thread IMO.
The Swell presently is already well managed (over managed already I'd say with all the present restrictions and closures ocurring lately) and why does it need more bureauocracy, red tape and further restrictions which are sure to close down large parts to vehicular travel and exploration?

I'm in no way against protecting and maintaining our wonderful natural treasures, but locking us out most of it certainly is not the answer either!

Look at Arches, Zion, GC and even Yellowstone as examples of protecting and controlling a place to death! They only have few and small areas "approved" for public access and then cram the hoards of visitors into those few areas. I think the fore- mentioned locations are undoubtedly some of the most spectacular ever, but do I enjoy or frequent them anymore!

Just not too enthused about fighting for parking spaces with several thousand
other visitors in the same place.

The swell is HUGE for those who've never been there. I love how you can drive
all day and see just a few vehicles over the vast expanse. I do not want to see
that access severely limited in any way.

Then the other issue I see is then cost to manage it in it's new and improved status. Wasn't there a thread on here recently about park closures due to budget cuts in AZ, CA, etc?
Then what? After a few years closed, deem it too expensive or intrusive to the environment to reopen closed roads?

Don't further screw up a great thing!