It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1906 Antiquities Act is under attack.

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
The Antiquities Act of 1906 is under attack. It is one of our nation's most important conservation tools.
Used to safeguard and preserve federal lands and cultural and historical sites for all Americans to enjoy, 16 presidents have designated 157 national monuments under this authority.
I haven't dug deep into this as of yet. I wanted to bring it to your attention first.

Statement by the Archaeological Institute of America in Opposition to the National Monument Creation and Protection Act, H.R. 3990
October 30, 2017

In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law, the first major legislation intended to protect and preserve archaeological sites and artifacts in the United States. The Archaeological Institute of America played a key role in drafting and promoting the Antiquities Act. Recognizing that archaeological looting threatened the heritage of the United States, society archaeologists led surveys of looted sites in the American Southwest and used that information to advocate for the Antiquities Act’s passage.

The Antiquities Act addresses the looting of archaeological sites on Federal lands, establishes a permit structure for archaeological investigations, and allows the President of the United States to designate national monuments. Since 1906, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have set aside more than 280 million acres of public lands and waters, creating parks and monuments that protect archaeological sites, provide cultural value to local communities, and offer economic benefits across the nation. The monuments established under the Antiquities Act highlight America’s history and natural wonders.

Today the achievements of the Antiquities Act are at risk. The National Monument Creation and Protection Act, H.R. 3990, erects hurdles that would make it virtually impossible for future presidents to designate national monuments. This bill requires approval of large-scale monument designations by all county commissions, state legislatures, and governors in the area, undermining the original intent of the Antiquities Act—to have the President protect at risk cultural resources in a timely manner. It bars presidents from designating marine national monuments completely and gives them the authority to reduce the size of declared national monuments drastically. H.R. 3990 effectively eliminates the presidential authority established by the Antiquities Act to safeguard heritage for all Americans and citizens of the world. 

The measure has already been approved by the House Natural Resources Committee and will come to a vote in the full House. The Archaeological Institute of America opposes H.R. 3990 and asks all members to urge their lawmakers to vote against H.R. 3990.

link
I can not understand the reasoning behind this. All that comes to mind is greed.
As I said I haven't looked into it yet so any help in figuring out the "why" would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Quad




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
It's also to help to not destroy history. That seems to be a bigger problem lately




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
So it was Sponsor by Rep. Rob Bishop (Introduced 10/06/2017).
House - Natural Resources Latest Action: They voted on 10/11/2017 with 23 Yeas and 17 Nays.
Looks like it passed the first hurtle.
I can't find a good reason for this bill.....
edit on 19-11-2017 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I would say it needs to be tweaked since it seems the Feds have used this act to munch up a whole lot of land that could be more useful in private hands.Map of Federally owned land



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I guess it boils down to the "why". If it is to give more lands back to the people, then MAYBE I could see it.
If it is to open these lands up to be raped by industries......then it should be a resounding NO.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Even in the article opposing it, it says that it would take all the power away from the Executive branch to make these decisions and force the executive branch to work with local and state governments. As it should be.

Horrible? I know!



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Two exceptions - land owned and used for military purposes and national transportation.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Quadrivium

Even in the article opposing it, it says that it would take all the power away from the Executive branch to make these decisions and force the executive branch to work with local and state governments. As it should be.

Horrible? I know!


Seriously, ask yourself this one question:
When has the government, in recent memory, done anything to set things back "as they should be"?
99.9% of the time government has the Anti-Midas touch.
Everything they are involved in turns to CRAP.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think I seem to remember that under Clinton there was an enormous amount of BLM awarded national monument status. If that were true, perhaps President Trump is undoing it.... ?

I want to say there was more, but memory fails me.

www.wnd.com...
edit on 19-11-2017 by Plotus because: Popular Dinosaur Weekly.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Because there's money to be made. The only thing that matters to some people sadly.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why do you think it's a good idea to put that kind of power into the hands of a single person? That is what this is addressing.

You should really take a look at that map of Federal land and ask yourself why it is that the States have no say in this and that a President can at will just take State land on a political whim? Oddly you don't see this happening in the east. I wonder why? Could it be because the land there is old money and owned by powerful families? People who are just a little bit more equal than those not in the inner circles?

Public lands are not as public as they once were and the more control the Fed's gobble up, the worse it will be for future generations. There are those who like to see us all crammed into giant cities and never step foot beyond the narrow corridors of the road systems.

The President should never have the power to simply take state or local land without checks and balances. There are laws aplenty to protect against the looting of antiquities.

Like most things, there is far more to this than people realize. They use this to block roads often to drive people off of land that has been in their family for generations.

Bravo if they are finally doing something about it!!!



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
I think I seem to remember that under Clinton there was an enormous amount of BLM awarded national monument status. If that were true, perhaps President Trump is undoing it.... ?

I want to say there was more, but memory fails me.

www.wnd.com...



Obama made the big grab.

Bundy comes to mind and Trump just might be trying to undo for mineral and energy production, fishing, recreational.




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Quadrivium

I would say it needs to be tweaked since it seems the Feds have used this act to munch up a whole lot of land that could be more useful in private hands.Map of Federally owned land


exactly. if people are wondering why this is being pushed go look at the previous admin and just how much land they grabbed up including areas of our oceans used for fishing. the amount grabbed was unprecedented and they even broke contracts with certain industries that were allowed to graze their cattle on such land or grow on it.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Fools

I guess it boils down to the "why". If it is to give more lands back to the people, then MAYBE I could see it.
If it is to open these lands up to be raped by industries......then it should be a resounding NO.


im curious what type of logic leads u to such a conclusion. do u just believe 100% of all industry is bad no matter what? do u not want to stay competitive with the rest of the world? do u not want more jobs for a growing population? if u think they are all abusing the land then wwhat about all the industry in place all over the US right now? should we get rid of them aswell cause its using the land? it just irks me when people hear big business and instantly jump to crazy conclusions. btw alot of the oceans and land that were grabbed werent used by large corporations and were generally fished or used by small private companies. funny how the big commercial fisherman were pretty much left alone though in those land grabs, u know the guys that have the money to pay lobbyists
edit on 19-11-2017 by TheScale because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Read my post. If this is to put the land back into the hands of the people then MAYBE it's a good thing. If it to be raped by industries, then no.
The government is involved so there are no good answers. They will find a way to screw up anything. As I stated earlier it's the Anti-Midas touch.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

I think it's a question in part of how much, is too much. I think we reached that point a couple of decades ago.

The raped by industry thing is not exactly truthful. Mining is a necessary thing and it's a question of do we rely on countries like China where they could care less about the environment for our needs, or allow mining here where it is controlled to the point it's nearly impossible to do now and the environment is protected well.

Also raped is an odd term in that regard. Using our resources for our needs is not exactly rape.

What do you call it when we rely on mining products from other countries knowing full well that more harm is being done than if we develop our own? Raping the other countries?

I look around me and most of the things I rely on from day to day are in full or part the end product of mining or other natural resources. Here I know that the mines are carefully regulated to protect the environment, they employ our own people with what are usually high paying blue collar jobs we so badly need and another country is not wiping out their own land for our benefit.

Just my thoughts on that.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That makes all the sense in the world
You might of nailed it
edit on 19-11-2017 by Plotus because: spun out



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555
Perhaps reclamation will be more prudent now and in the future



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Fools

I guess it boils down to the "why". If it is to give more lands back to the people, then MAYBE I could see it.
If it is to open these lands up to be raped by industries......then it should be a resounding NO.


Need to look into the funding of the bill to discover the "why." Wanna bet it's the latter of your two reasons?



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Destroying History. This so reminds me of the illuminati cards I saw two years ago. It reminds me of Hitlers book burnings too. Give those in power a bone, and they'll take the entire Carcass!




top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join