Trump Slashes Size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Monuments

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Dammit I live here in Utah and we want our land back. We do not need federal "protection" of our own land. The feds own more than half of this state. We can protect it just fine ourselves, thank you very much. We passed a resolution a few years ago demanding our land back, and Trump has given us some. It isn't enough, but it is a good first step. And you know what? If mining some of that land is in the best interests of our state, then that is up to us to decide. We don't need the feds.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

But this is up many on the left think.

The government needs to control everything, because individuals can't be trusted. The government must be everyone's dad and take care of everything.

In this case it's the land.

You Damn Nevadans can't be trusted to take care of your own land properly!

Give every part of your life over to the federal government, only they have the intelligence to run things.

Never mind they fail in almost everything they try to control.

a reply to: Grambler
Your treading dangerously close towards 'Sainthood'

It comes down to this. The US Federal Government just gave land to oil and coal companies to mine and pollute.

Let that sink in. The us government isn't giving land back to the states, as some in this thread think. It's giving the land to coal and oil companies. basically for free. That doesn't sit well with me. I'm all for states rights, but not Corporations rights to control our land.

originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Grambler
Your treading dangerously close towards 'Sainthood'

Aw shucks, thanks.

But I will settle for respected gentleman.

Gonna stick my neck on the chopping block ...

But if we start reducing the size of federal lands, where does it stop? Is George Washington's birthplace next?

We should let the states decide? You mean like...state monuments ?

I'm all f***king confused now.

Can y'all pick one side of your mouth to speak from please?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Cut the area down for what?

I dont know what you all are thinking this means, it doesnt open it all up to strip mining or fracking.

This is still government property, the only difference is you wont get jailed or fined for running cattle through it or camping or fishing or biking...this is all allowed in those areas now, not construction or deforestation or anything drastic to the environment.

what it really means is now the states can say what you can do on that land instead of the federal government, its a good thing of course.

Is it any suprise why Trump haters want land to remain undeveloped ?

It's not out of altruism.

It's to keep the population concentrated on the coastal areas.

Politics people.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Cut the area down for what?

I dont know what you all are thinking this means, it doesnt open it all up to strip mining or fracking.

This is still government property, the only difference is you wont get jailed or fined for running cattle through it or camping or fishing or biking...this is all allowed in those areas now, not construction or deforestation or anything drastic to the environment.

what it really means is now the states can say what you can do on that land instead of the federal government, its a good thing of course.

Until you see what's really happening, feds and states governments are giving land to mining companies and destroying our natural wilderness that we use for camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, rafting, swimming, boating etc. Us little people in the states don't actually see any benefit. We actually get to use less land than we did when it was a monument. They're in effect, taking land away from taxpayers and giving it to large corporations.

originally posted by: MisterMcKill
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Dammit I live here in Utah and we want our land back. We do not need federal "protection" of our own land. The feds own more than half of this state. We can protect it just fine ourselves, thank you very much. We passed a resolution a few years ago demanding our land back, and Trump has given us some. It isn't enough, but it is a good first step. And you know what? If mining some of that land is in the best interests of our state, then that is up to us to decide. We don't need the feds.

So glad you chimed in because my 1st question was "what do the people in Utah want?" I don't know a lot about this, but it makes sense to me that a state that has local control of the land is in a better position to manage that land then the Feds.

I think on a smaller scale it tends to be that people that live on property they own take better care of it, so perhaps that same dynamic will apply to Utah owning more of it's own land, I hope so !

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Cut the area down for what?

I dont know what you all are thinking this means, it doesnt open it all up to strip mining or fracking.

This is still government property, the only difference is you wont get jailed or fined for running cattle through it or camping or fishing or biking...this is all allowed in those areas now, not construction or deforestation or anything drastic to the environment.

Bears Ears is specific, you can already graze At Bears Ears under lease, but you can't drill or mine.
Other places may have other rules.

How they plan to develop on the public lands isn't given, but there was a coal mine planned in the past so I guess it will be something like that once those areas have been deregulated, and going by Trump's words that can only mean it is intended to be used for something,

Together,” he continued, “we will usher in a bright new future of wonder and wealth.”

a reply to: CriticalStinker



I am not sure how many of you have driven across the United States, but I have driven from Chicago to So Cali, where I live, and there is a whole lot of NOTHING between here and there. Once its is done, there will be no going back. Something special taken for granted, ruined by the wealthy for the wealthy.

Why this administration takes us BACKWARD, the others that come to mind, Allowing "Elephant Trophies" back into the country, and that makes me sick.

www.businessinsider.com...

Then we have the Paris agreement.

Another one, is the "travel ban". Why? Because back when trump first wanted to implement it, it was only supposed to be a few months. It has now been 11 since he took office, the damn travel ban that was so important SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN LIFTED.

So that Temporary ban that now goes into affect, what exactly is trump going to accomplish with this "temporary" ban, that he could not the past 11 months.....NOTHING. Or are we just going to ban them for good? That is NOT what trump said back in January.

a reply to: kurthall

Well the travel ban was halted by the ridiculous 6th.

So now it has a chance to work. Talk to me in another few months

a reply to: CriticalStinker

SLOW? This tax change is all about corporate america running america. If you weren't aware, this has already been taking place for eons through how campaigns get financed. This just makes it simpler to see.

Each politician should have to be like Nascar to wear where they are getting their money from. No one votes based upon what the people want, they vote on how their contributors want them to vote.

Here's the bottom line: Trump gave back to the state land that is rightfully its own to manage and use as it deems appropriate. It should not be the federal government's job to dictate to states how it should use its land.

Now, what the states choose to do with it after this change of hands happens is up to the governors, but what happens after the fact isn't Trump's fault, no matter how you want to pretend it is.

ANY step that the federal government takes to relinquish its control over states' land is a good thing--now state citizens just need to assert their will on those governments so that they don't destroy the majority of it for short-sighted goals.

But, of course, I'm sure that if they do, it's suddenly Trump's fault for telling Utah that it's time to act like an adult and manage its own land.

Why do so many of you want the federal government to babysit everything from state governments down to individual citizens? That approach to life baffles the ever-living sh*t out of me.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Hazardous1408


There is a slow but measurable trend of corporate interest taking more weight than citizen interest.

This is nothing new, and I believe it's a result of allowing unlimited funds to be used on campaigns of both sides of the isle.

I'd say you're right on point. Conservatives have always favored the rich but with neo-liberalism the Dem's jumped right on board as well. Now we have all these neo-liberal ceo's who are massively wealthy basically running and ruining the country. For those of you on the left side of the fence, neither Clinton nor Obama did anything to stem the tide of corporate greed and, in fact, did a great deal to support it. The idea that politicians in this country fall into two parties is laughable to me. NEITHER PARTY IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE LITTLE GUY. They can say they is, but they ain't.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Then how did we get one party, the Republican Party, in charge of 30 states and all of federal level? Somebody must think the Republican Party is looking out for them.

The hype cracks me up.
en.m.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Wiki

Bears Ears National Monument is a United States National Monument located in San Juan County in southeastern Utah, established by President Barack Obama by presidential proclamation on December 28, 2016.

Bears Ears was proclaimed less than a year ago, by Obama, after Hillary lost.
It’s not like history is being re-written.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Then how did we get one party, the Republican Party, in charge of 30 states and all of federal level? Somebody must think the Republican Party is looking out for them.

Because in the grand scheme of things, Republican domestic policy speaks to the concerns of rural Americans a lot more than Democrat social policy does. Rural Americans statistically care about their second amendment rights, as little federal involvement in their daily comings and goings as possible, and local authority to set policy over issues like development, wildlife resource management, natural resource management, education, etc. Democrats seem to approach social policy from this concept of superiority by which metropolitan ideals represent the pinnacle and are obviously the role model and goal of every American. They espouse a position by which one's institutional education qualifications and number of special interest organizations you're a member of dictate how important your opinion should be and how much more "qualified" you are to set policy over all the uneducated, uncultured rural urchins. Urban Americans care about federally dominated social policy, using politics to save the world from tradition and culture whereas rural Americans believe their traditions and culture can save them from politics.

Most rural Conservative voters aren't voting Republican because we think the GOP is looking out for us, we vote Republican because we believe the GOP will leave us alone, neither helping us nor (as is the case too frequently with Democrats) hindering us or holding us back.

originally posted by: 38181

Handing over 85% back to state is a mistake, big mining and oil companies are drooling right now.

There's oil in Utah? lol boy those evil states, I tell ya, can't let them manage their own lands.