Trump to Order Review of National Monuments

Altho last Monday Trump donated his paycheck to the National Park service, something else was going on behind the scenes. Wednesday Trump signed an executive order directing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review lands designated as National Monuments since 1996 to reduce or eliminate them. Of course it was said nicer, but we all get the gist of it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order Wednesday directing his interior secretary to review the designation of tens of millions of acres of land as "national monuments," an action that could upend protections put in place in Utah and other states as Trump tries to rack up accomplishments in his first 100 days.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to declare federal lands as monuments and restrict how the lands can be used.

"The executive order will direct me as the secretary to review prior monument designations and to suggest legislative changes or modifications to the monuments," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters at the White House Tuesday evening.

www.usnews.com...

Trumps budget also proposes a 12% reduction to the Department of the Interior. Parts of which are probably bloated but it ties into how lands will be used in the future.As if that weren't enough he'll be signing another one to look at all the offshore areas that that could opened up to drilling.

Trump’s budget proposal singles out critical land acquisition and protection programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for $120 million dollars in cuts. This evisceration of LWCF—an already underfunded program—would pave the way for trophy homes in our national parks and make it almost impossible for willing land owners to work with the National Park Service and other agencies to protect their land for future generations.

The Department of Interior is charged with managing more than 500 million acres of American parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. Cutting Interior’s budget would mean less money for trails and recreation access, less money for land management, and less money for parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges.

westernpriorities.org...




These are the parks on the chopping block.
www.latimes.com...

I knew Trump wasn't going to be great when it came to environmental matters but it's looking like he's primed for a wholesale gutting of what's left of our national resources. Of course there will be the inevitable lawsuits from groups like the Sierra Club but in this case I think a challenge is warranted.

For everyone who isn't familiar, here are some numbers regarding the budget cuts. In total he's slashing 1.6 billion. But I guess it's ok since he just donated $78,333? SMH

Trump’s budget calls for a punishing 12 percent cut to the department, which manages the United States’ public lands. It would eliminate some of the department’s programs altogether, including the $13.2 million National Wildlife Refuge Fund and the $20 million funding for the nation’s 49 National Heritage Areas. It would also decrease funding for land acquisition — such as land that would be added to the nation’s national parks, and then stewarded by the NPS — by $120 million.

thinkprogress.org...

a reply to: Caver78

Builder's going to build , or sell so others can build.
"They paved paradise to put up a parking lot"

President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order Wednesday directing his interior secretary to review the designation of tens of millions of acres of land as "national monuments," an action that could upend protections put in place in Utah and other states as Trump tries to rack up accomplishments in his first 100 days.

Everything the Federal government has taken and declared sacrosanct came from the states to begin with.

If people have a problem with property being returned to their rightful owners.

Well they shouldn't.

From there it's up to the states to decide what to do.

As per 'state rights'.

In my opinion the Govt already owns too much land. In California its 45%. Nevada its 85%.
There is super over crowding in California Cities. 97% of Californians live on 3% of the land. The Difference is tied up in large Land Owners like Red Emmerson of Sierra Pacific.

And I believe its unconstitutional for the Govt to own so much. Article 9 if I remember correctly. Im sure Regular Apt dwellers will never get to own their own land regardless, but the Govt in my opinion doesnt have the right to the Land. They have proven not to be good caretakers.

Maybe one of these national parks could be turned into a Veterans Camp? Or a wild people refuge? Maybe a spot of land for the homeless?

ballotpedia.org...

a reply to: neo96

You know in my head I agree with that, but States make some abysmal decisions. Here in our state a governor went whole hog giving away fracking rights for insanely cheap prices on public lands cause he was worried "we'd miss the boat". Since gas prices tanked and companies went bankrupt we as a state are left with the mess.

Our state already has messes with the remains of the coal industry and oil industry, that we haven't been financially able to resolve. I don't trust the States to make any better decisions regarding the environment than the Feds.

I see the Canyons of the Ancients area in Colorado is on that list. It contains the largest concentration of archeological sites in the country.
Source

I declare Colorado off limits to L'orange. On the plus side if this national monument was returned to the state it would remain protected. Number one economy in the country is not harming the beauty of the state to risk any of those tourist dollars. Coloradans from all sides know how to stick it to the government and tell em to shove it.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: neo96

You know in my head I agree with that, but States make some abysmal decisions.

So does the Federal Government. All governments make some abysmal decisions, but the reality of the situation is that we have an over-bloated federal government, and getting rid of some of its ownerships and responsibilities is generally always a good thing.

Maybe if they hand over control to the states, people might quit going missing so often in these national parks.

I see large areas of the calif desert that have no redeming value that need protected that were placed under restrictions just because a small group of people did not want mining or solar plants in the.

some of this land comes under the California Desert Protection Act of 1994
and ‎Senator Dianne Feinstein made a lot of money because part of it was old railroad land owned by her and her husband and bought by the government at inflated prices.
carnegiejournal.com...

a reply to: Caver78

Here is another source.

During the Obama era, not only were there massive hikes in federal mining claim fees, suction dredge gold mining bans in Democrat strongholds of Oregon and California, and costly court battles, but Obama sidestepped Congress to declare 33 national monuments by executive order under the Antiquities Act of 1906.

Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform America” and sideline traditional American primary industries such as mining, ranching and timber to appease radical environmental lobbyists and promote his vision of a “green economy” has failed miserably. Read more: dailycaller.com...

More.....

Obama's last-minute land grabs only the tip of presidential excess

But that is only the tip of the iceberg of Obama’s attempt to create a legacy of environmental preservation. In all, Obama has taken 554,590,000 acres of land and sea out of use for private citizens and out of the deliberative processes of government.

thehill.com...


And it goes back to the Clinton era too.

Good on Trump.

a reply to: neo96

Exactly. If were going to make america grate again than national monuments need to be erected commemorating all the lost lives of soldiers living lovingly for there country, fighting the good battles an sacrificing there lives.

What we dont need is more empty land. Personally I think all the empty land should be churned over and turned into farms to feed americans by americans. No rice just wheat and corn (or as the native americans call it "maize).

I garantee it's priority 1# to make states pay for there own empty space.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Could be wrong about this, but when someone goes missing in a national Park don't they call in local SAR? State Police?

a reply to: ANNED

Thanks for the history on Feinstein!
I had no idea.

originally posted by: neo96

President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order Wednesday directing his interior secretary to review the designation of tens of millions of acres of land as "national monuments," an action that could upend protections put in place in Utah and other states as Trump tries to rack up accomplishments in his first 100 days.

Everything the Federal government has taken and declared sacrosanct came from the states to begin with.

If people have a problem with property being returned to their rightful owners.

Well they shouldn't.

So he's going to give it back to the Native Americans is he?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

You know, I'm absolutely floored this many people are agreeing with Trump on this. On the other hand I have to admit I don't work in an industry directly related to resource extraction. All I knew was that for many years there had been a "type" of range war out west between the Feds taking land and Locals fighting it.

Perhaps they should stop selling land to the Chinese while they're at it.