Obama to Create New National Monuments?
By George Wuerthner, 2-19-10
Introduction:
A short list (below) describing the Obama Administration’s potential new national monuments was leaked to the media this week. I had heard rumors that this was being considered as early as November when I had a private conversation with a top BLM administrator, so I was not surprised by the “announcement.”
The areas under consideration for new national monument status subject to public support and other considerations include the following lands, Owyhee Canyons, Montana Plains, Otero Mesa, San Rafael Swell, Northern Sonoran Desert, Cascades Siskiyou, Vermillion Basin, Lesser Prairie Chicken, Berrysessa-Snow Mountain, Heart of the Great Basin, Bodie Hills, Modoc Plateau, Cedar Mesa, and San Juan Islands.
At one time or another I have visited nearly all the proposed national monuments and each has its special values that make them worthy of protection. Let’s hope the Obama administration follows through on designation of these areas, and even adds a few of the runner up proposals like Bristol Bay, Alaska and Wyoming’s Red Desert.
The Proposed National Monuments:
Otero Mesa in New Mexico: A 1.2 million acre grasslands inhabited by prairie dogs, pronghorn, and other wildlife.
San Rafael Swell, Utah: A wild 40x75 mile mix of canyons, gorges, arches, and buttes that includes 5 wilderness study areas, this place has long been considered for national park status. I’ve wandered some of the canyons on the fringes of this area including Little Wildhorse Canyon, an area with narrow slot canyons.
Owyhee Canyonlands in Oregon and Nevada: The adjacent Idaho portions of this canyon complex was given some partial protection by legislation last year, but Nevada and Oregon sections of this area remain unprotected. I worked the BLM searching for rare plants in this extremely remote part of the West, and often went days without seeing another soul. The remote canyons are home to redband trout and California bighorn sheep.
Montana Northern Plains: This would protect the Bitter Creek WSA and other BLM lands which lies just south of the Canadian border and immediately adjacent to Grasslands National Park in Canada. Back in the 1980s, I published a proposal for Montana wildlands that included a 3.5 million acre national park that would have included the BLM lands along the Missouri Breaks, Charles M. Refuge Wildlife Refuge, and the Bitter Creek area, among other public holdings. In essence, this proposal would make that dream a reality by creating a natural connected corridor between the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Missouri Breaks National Monument, and private conservation efforts north of the Missouri River.
Northwest Sonoran Desert, Arizona. The Sonoran Desert, dominated by its signature plant, the saguaro cactus, it is the most diverse of all North American deserts. On-going and escalating ORV abuse, livestock grazing, and other threats, including extended drought perhaps due to global climate change, threatens this unique ecosystem. This proposal would encompass desert lands northwest of Phoenix.
Cascade Siskiyou National Monument expansion, California/Oregon. In 2000 the Cascades Siskiyou National Monument was established in Oregon, but a portion of the area lies in California. This expansion south would include fine examples of oak woodlands and the unique plant assemblages in this region which features vegetation representative of the Great Basin, Klamath Mountains and Cascade Range. There is also discussion of including an expanded boundary in Oregon as well to include the proposed Siskiyou Crest to the west of Ashland. The Siskiyou Crest includes portions of the PCT, the Red Buttes Wilderness, and the Kangeroo Roadless areas, one of the largest unprotected roadless areas in northern California. This is an area I’ve explored on numerous occasions over the years, and can attest to its unique beauty and quality.
Vermillion Basin, Colorado. The Vermillion Basin lies along the Colorado-Wyoming border and bisected by Vermillion Creek, a tributary of the Green River. Part of the area was studied by the BLM for wilderness designation. It is another lonely corner of the West with rugged canyons and sage covered slopes containing important sage grouse habitat. I’ve hiked a few parts of the basin, and did not encounter another person. But this solitude is likely to change in the future since the area is considered a high priority for on-going oil and gas exploration.
Lesser Prairie Chicken, New Mexico: A 58,000 acre area that is home to bluestem grasslands that contain some of the best lesser prairie chicken habitat in the United States.
Berrysessa-Snow Mountain, California: This 500,000 acre area would include portions of California’s northern Coast Ranges that are the headwaters of Cache Creek, a BLM wilderness area, home to many wintering bald eagles and a growing herd of Tule Elk as well as one of the most diverse botanical communities in the United States. I’ve had the pleasure of hiking Cache Creek and hiking to the summit of Snow Mountain—both areas have outstanding wildlands value, but I was most impressed with the oak woodlands on lower slopes and fir forests at higher elevations.
Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada: This monument would include the Toiyabe, Monitor, and Toquima Ranges. All three ranges have some protected status granted by wilderness designation. This was one of my favorite parts of Nevada which I explored in preparing my Nevada Mountain Ranges book. It contains substantial archeological sites, huge aspen groves, and 12,000 foot peaks.
Bodie Hills, California. Have you ever visited Bodie Ghostown State Park north of Mono Lake, than you have been in the proposed Bodie Hills National Monument. This land of sweeping sage covered hills, home to Mono Basin Sage Grouse, an endangered species. Connecting the Bodie Hills with Mono Lake Scenic Area, plus adjacent recently designated wilderness in the headwaters of the Owen River would make a large interconnected wildlands of national significance.
Modoc Plateau, California. The 3 million acre proposed Modoc Plateau National Monument is another one of those out of the way places in the West where few venture, and is not likely to be on anyone’s to “must see before I die list”. The proposal includes the Skedaddle Mountains on the Nevada-California border, one of the largest unprotected wilderness study areas in the state. Immediately west of the Black Rock Desert complex in northern Nevada, this area, along with the Owyhee Canyonlands, probably contains some of the least visited areas in the American West. One of the things that I’ve particularly enjoyed when I’ve camped out here, is the vast bowl of shining stars at night since this area is far from any major urban light sources.
Cedar Mesa, Utah. The Cedar Mesa area extends from the San Juan River to Elk Ridge on the north borders Grand Gulch on the west and Comb Wash on the east. It includes some of the best canyons in Utah like Mule, Arch, Fish and others, as well as thousands of ancient Native American dwellings and other archeological materials. I once watched cows trampling and destroying ancient walls of an Indian dwelling in Arch Canyon, and have seen plenty of damage from ORVs in Comb Wash. Hopefully national monument designation can bring more protection to this unique part of Utah’s Canyon Country.
San Juan Islands, Washington. The 172 islands and islets that make up Washington’s San Juan Islands lie in Puget Sound north and west of Seattle. The islands lie in the rainshadow the Olympic Mountains and receive some of the lowest annual precipitation on the entire West Coast north of Santa Barbara, California. I have only visited a few of the islands, but enjoy the play of land and sea. The islands and the surrounding ocean is a rich land for marine mammals like orca as well as salmon. There are only 13,389 acres are owned by federal, state or local governments in the islands, so I don’t know exactly which lands might be included in the monument. Hopefully national monument status can add to these public holdings to preserve what is a truly outstanding landscape.
Other areas on short list:
Among areas on the short list which probably will not get national monument designation at this time are Wyoming’s Red Desert, Bristol Bay region and Teshekpuk Lake on the North Slope, both in Alaska. It’s a shame that these three areas are not at the top of the list.
Wyoming’s Red Desert, has been proposed as national park for decades. It includes Adobe Town Badlands, a desert elk herd, and portions of historic trails like the Oregon and Mormon trails. It is threatened by expanding oil and gas development. (Perhaps the reason it is not on the list is due to legislation passed when the Tetons were given protected status that prohibited any new national monuments in Wyoming.)
The Bristol Bay is area that is under threat. The Bay is home to the most famous and largest salmon fisheries in North America, and a proposed gold mine near the headwaters of one of the area rivers could pose a threat to many of these runs.
Finally, Teshekpuk Lake is a well known breeding area for waterfowl located along the Arctic Coast to the west of Prudhoe Bay. Oil development is planned for this area as well.
Land Acquisition and Consolidation
Other parts of the leaked proposal discuss funding for land trades and targeted land acquisition from willing sellers in several important areas to consulate management. For instance, within the Missouri Breaks National Monument there are approximately 80,000 acres of private lands which the administration believes could be purchased for approximately $24 million. Another area targeted for land acquisition is the Upper Green River Valley of Wyoming where almost 400,000 checker boarded state and private acres are located that could be purchased or exchanged. A third area for consolidation is the John Day River in Oregon and the south slope of the Pioneer Mountains in Idaho near Craters of the Moon National Monument.
What are National Monuments?
National Monuments are similar to national parks in many ways, and raise the profile of an area. Unlike National Parks which must be designated by Congressional legislation, and are only managed by the National Park Service, national monuments can be created by Presidential proclamation under the 1906 Antiquities’ Act. Though most national monuments are under National Park Service administration, five other federal agencies currently manage some of our national monuments. For instance, the Missouri Breaks National Monument in Montana is managed by the BLM and Mount St. Helens Volcano National Monument is managed by the Forest Service.
The Act was first used by Theodore Roosevelt to create Devil’s Tower National Monument in Wyoming in 1906. Roosevelt subsequently expanded upon this first conservation act by designating the Grand Canyon NM, Olympic NM, National Bridges NM, and Pinnacles NM in California, among 18 national monuments he established during his presidency. Many subsequent Presidents have designated new national monuments, including George W. Bush who created five national monuments, though four were off in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where there are no voters and no controversy. Many national monuments are “upgraded” to national park status eventually. For instance, Grand Teton National Park, Death Valley National Park, Katmai National Park were all originally national monuments.
Locals Typically Oppose National Monuments
We will, no doubt, hear some the predictable rhetoric about a “government” take over—even though in nearly every instance, the designation is merely changing management emphasis on lands already owned by the public. Historically, however, national monuments were established over the protests of local people.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt tried in vain to get Congress to protect the Grand Canyon but with no success, So Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act to create a Grand Canyon National Monument over the objections of mining, logging and livestock interests as well as most of the residents of Arizona. The Arizona Congressional Delegation even stopped funding for the national monument as a protest.
Similarly, when Roosevelt established protection for old growth forests in the Olympic Mountains, local timber interests and communities were outraged. When Franklin Roosevelt established Jackson Hole National Monument in the Tetons in 1943, locals protested, and the Wyoming delegation introduced legislation to undesignated the monument.
Eventually the Jackson Hole National Monument was merged with other lands to create Grand Teton National Park. When Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt established Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah in 1996, the Utah Congressional delegation and Governor were opposed.
There is a pattern to all these protest. Generally short sighted local attitudes change over time, and national monuments generally enjoy wide spread public support even within the states where public opposition was high. There are few people who live in Wyoming today, for instance, who would vote to undesignated Grand Teton National Park. And on the heavily logged Olympic Peninsula, Olympic National Park retains the bulk of remaining old growth forests and intact salmon streams that is now one of the prime attractions of the region.
Will the Obama Administration go forward with this proposal and ensure a legacy in conservation history? I certainly hope so. If history and the passage of time is any indication, future generations of Americans will thank him for these designations just as millions of Americans now enjoy and are grateful for past President’s use of the Antiquities Act to enshrine many of America’s most iconic landscapes from the Grand Tetons in Wyoming to Glacier Bay in Alaska to Joshua Tree National Park.
George Wuerthner has published 35 books covering many areas and topics including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy, California Wilderness Areas, Oregon Wilderness Areas, Nevada Mountain Ranges, Alaska Mountain Ranges, Idaho Mountain Ranges, and Thrillcraft--The Environmental Impacts of Motorized Recreation.
[End of article]Thanks for this excellent article. I too hope that the Obama administration will move forward to consider these exciting and, in some cases, long overdue conservation opportunities. If we had listened to the local naysayers in the past, we would not have Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Grand Canyon, or many other national parks and conservation areas that we now enjoy and appreciate - and that provide enormous local economic benefits. Those who are literally frothing at the mouth now and spewing poison over Obama's alleged "secret plan" to create National Monuments are essentially the same naysayers that similarly erupted over past conservation opportunities. These Republicans, motorheads, fossil fools, and other assorted opponents consistently work in lock-step to kill anything positive, necessary, or in the public interest. The current controversy is no exception. In my view, they have no credibility because they won't compromise and often try to sabotage the democratic process through whatever means possible. Of course, those of us who support conservation and want to see this review process continue need to speak up. We can't take anything for granted or be complacent. The opponents are loudly screaming and we can't let them stop this review process or win a commitment that could undermine it.
Comment By tritonpsh@aol.com, 2-19-10It's natural for us cranky conservationists to think only corporate & local business interests are anti-designation, but I'm sure I'm not the only wilderness enthusiast who has mixed feelings. If you love solitude, Monuments just bring more dopey tourists! I remember when the Escalante was totally off the beaten path, now it's a veritable caravan heading down Hole-in-the-Rock road. As someone very passionate about Nevada wilderness and my favorite personal paradise canyons in the amazing mountain ranges in the center of the state, I'm not sure that their pristine qualities will be served by the attention that would come from Monument status.
Comment By Geo, 2-20-10Dear Tritonpsh
Your fears are often expressed, and I think they have some validity. If one looks at the long term effects of designation vs what the alternatives often bring, I think on the whole, conservation wins.
The lovely Glen Canyon is underwater and still "pristine" because no one knew about it.
Lake Tahoe was once proposed as a national park. Had that occurred we would still have a lot of people visiting Tahoe, but I can guarantee that you would not have casinos, summer cabins, water quality issues, and a host of other problems that now plague the basin.
There are many other examples I could give of lost opportunities.
As for solitude which I suspect you are interested in, I hike every year in the "crowded" places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and so forth. I've never had difficulty finding solitude if that was my objective. I recall a four day backpack I did in Yosemite over the 4th of July weekend where other than the first few miles away from the trailhead, I did not encounter another soul. Opportunities for solitude exist, even in our most visited parks. The fact that I had the landscape intact and able to obtain those places is a testament to the value of protective status.
George is right. Get these areas under protection and welcome people in ways that prevent the areas from being permanently impaired Sure, the visitor counts will be incredible, with pictures being taken and trinkets being bought and money being spent; but, if you want solitude, take a leisurely stroll to pretty much any location more than 300 yards away from the nearest parking area. In many cases, even the wildlife will be so surprised to see you they'll walk right up to try to identify your species ...and the good part is that, in areas under protection, they'll still be doing that when your grandchildren take that same leisurely stroll.
Comment By milburnschmidt, 2-20-10REDROCK is the problem by creating a straw man who represents what he thinks is the problem.REPUBLICAN MOTOR HEADS FOSSIL FOOLS as if Democrats dont fit into the same classification.Politics always comes up without any consideration that stereotyping is wrong unless it is the Leftwing doing it. To throw OBAMA in as being thwarted does not mention if it was a Republican president Redrock would rail about Executive abuse going around congress.Attitudes like his are why these things get bogged down he doesnt care what anyone else thinks and Im sure without getting to technical all the areas proposed are under Federal control now thru BLM and Forest service protection and those in favor of a imperial system of executive rule act like these are unmamaged areas where anything goes.It seems to make them Natl monuments without figuring out where the money will come from to maintain them is not a good idea. Our Natl Parks are billions short of the money to do maintenance and improvements by their own admission. I believe anything done by executive order can be undone by the next president if he doesnt like it. Why not do it thru the Congress and get it done with a majority agreeing.
Comment By Michael Kellett, 2-21-10Great article. I sympathize with those who don't want to see these areas overrun with tourists. But think of the alternative.
The alternative is not that these lands are going to be just left alone for the enjoyment of wilderness enthusiasts. The reason many of these areas are on the list is because they are tremendously threatened by industrial resource extraction and development. For example:
- Cedar Mesa by vandalism and looting of archaeological sites, indiscriminate off-road motor vehicle use, oil and gas drilling, livestock overgrazing.
- Montana Plains by oil and gas drilling, proposed backcountry airstrips, uncontrolled motorized watercraft, a planned new utility corridor, livestock overgrazing, and probable future development on private and state inholdings.
- Northwest Sonoran Desert by indiscriminate off-road motor vehicle use, and industrial solar power development.
- Otero Mesa by massive oil and gas drilling, indiscriminate off-road motor vehicle use, and livestock overgrazing.
- Red Desert by massive oil and gas drilling, industrial wind power development, indiscriminate off-road motor vehicle use, and livestock overgrazing.
- San Rafael Swell by mineral exploration, indiscriminate off-road motor vehicle use, vandalism and looting of archaeological sites, and unsustainable livestock grazing.
- Vermillion Basin by massive oil and gas drilling, indiscriminate off-road motor vehicle use, and livestock overgrazing.
- Bristol Bay by the proposed Pebble Mine, potentially the largest open-pit mine in North America.
- Teshekpuk Lake by oil and gas development.
Even significantly increased tourism (other than increased ORV use) would not even come close to these impacts.
My liberal side says this would be great.
However, my conservative side says with 50%? of the nations workers in some form of government employment, 20% true unemployment, the remaining 30% cannot support more government spending in any form. If these monuments can be accomplished in a revenue neutral manner, more power to them.
I would like to permanently reserve space on them for solar panels to offset the hydrocarbon equivalent that gets locked up under them. Nothing is free.
@ Mr. Kauffman... I have no argument with your data, I honestly don't know one way or the other.. but.. would you please share a source or two?
Much appreciated.
Floyd,
This would not cost much. It is basically a change from active extractive management to passive management. In fact, it would probably save money by reducing subsidized grazing, administration of oil and gas and mineral leasing, and maintenance of the current large road system.
Regarding solar, I am a big supporter. And there are plenty of areas of the West that would be fine for solar -- roaded and developed areas, former strip mines, seriously degraded landscapes, areas near major cities, etc. See the map of potential solar sites in on western BLM lands at http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/maps/sol010.pdf
But places like these proposed off limits to solar energy -- as well as oil and gas -- facilities. The same with wind power facilities. It makes no sense to destroy pristine ecosystems in the name of ecologically sustainable energy. We need to save pristine places AND shift to sustainable energy. We can do both.
Michael and Gene, I was just pushing your buttons.
Having said that I do think we need to have a national energy policy in place prior to permanently excluding any areas from energy developement. All it would take would be for someone to close the Straight of Hormuz and we would be begging oil companies to drill.
These areas should be considered for their appropriate land use status. It just needs to be an open and honest decision making process, not some backroom deal cooked up by self appointed saviours. The long-range planning processes of managing agencies should be used to make these decisions with public participation.
Comment By Michael Kellett, 2-22-10Hi Floyd,
I agree completely.
I too am torn between the two schools of thought. It does seem that most of these proposed areas are indeed worthy of "enhanced status". Some of them seem only capable of either energy production or scenic value. Being a landscape photographer, I'm pretty partial to beautiful scenery.
I hope that these places will be judged on their merits and not on the perceived dangers to that area. If we locked up every pretty spot, we'd have to import a great many things we take for granted. The Giant Sequoia National Monument left a bad taste in my mouth when Clinton set aside 300,000 acres of choked, unhealthy forests to "save" 10,000 acres of Giant Sequoias that weren't in any danger to "management", being already protected with boilerplate laws, rules and policies. In fact, those stands are even MORE at-risk now than they were as regular National Forest. The McNally Fire burned for weeks and impacted several choked Sequoia stands, nearly killing the second largest "Bigtree".
Who will we blame when an entire sequoia stand goes up in smoke and doesn't come back (an entirely probable possibility)?
I won't support energy development in these special places, especially where roads would need to be built. Which brings up more questions; Will their new status require the development of tourist facilities? What recreational activities will be allowed or banned? What do you think would happen if the Moab area was turned into a National Monument and all mountain bikes were banned? Will new roads be built for the tourists? How many new snack bars and gift shops will be built. How much will they charge for admission? Where will they put the new gas stations they will surely need?
Questions.....questions.....questions
Well, Obama's going to need SOME kind of "legacy" given he's looking like a short-termer.
Not a coincidence that most of these places didn't vote for him. Nor is it a coincidence that most locations have energy potential...can't have that, not even precious pristine wind such as was proposed for Bitter Creek only to be blown away by the mighty wind of hypocrisy.
Find it real cute that the plan for the Breaks is to buy out and therefore eliminate all those evil, pesky ranchers.
The real shame is that there are people within the agency that gave serious thought to all this and even wrapped it up in the language of "conservation biology."
Speaking as a native Montanan, I have to express that this idea is a poor one for Montanans. Our number one tax base is agricultural lands and products.
When land is taken out of production, as it has been for programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, (CRP) it compromises our economies by eliminating the tax base that we so desperately need to run all of our public services: schools, health and family services, higher education, protective services, natural resource management and the like.
Some may argue that we take land out of production for the "future". What this has done to communities such as the one I returned to, is provide a shaky and uncertain future. For example, before CRP programs went into effect, we had 4 grocery stores, 3 implement dealers, 2 car dealerships, 7 restaurants, and 5 bars.
Today, we have 1 grocery store, 1 implement dealer, 1 car dealership, 4 restaurants, and 3 bars. Our county-wide working young has been leaving at a rate of 6% a year. We have lost a large part of our economy due to land being out of production. Railroad companies now pick up grain at better prices elsewhere. And, contrary to urban predictions that tourism or eco-tourism would make up the balance, that the rest of America would thank us for our sacrifice, it makes up a mere 2% of our tax receipts.
Others argue, it's for the long-haul, the soil bank. Well, CRP contracts come out every 10 years, so really, in less than 30 years, a generation, the program is coming to a slow close. We saved soil, but we grew abundant noxious and invasive weeds that threaten the native species ranchers worked so hard to manage. We didn't cure saline seeps (only better water management did that on PRODUCTIVE land, with PRECISION agricultural equipment and management practices.)
If you lived on this land, if you had to make your living from this land and the tax dollars it provides, you would not wish it to be locked up for future generations. Rather, you would continue to work, improving its value and place so that your grandchildren actually HAD a place to return to.
Heather
Most people are unaware of how little ranchers pay in taxes and also there's a back up system as well by the fed. government.
First, since ranchers and farmers dominate legislatures, in most western states including Montana, the tax rate on ag land and timber land is extremely low. For instance, the last time I checked Plum Creek timber company is paying about a dollar an acre in property taxes on its holdings in Montana. The bill they pay looks big because they own hundreds of thousands of acres. But the amont they pay per acre is ridiculously low.
Nothing like the market value of the land paid by others who own property of similar market value. I.e. if you were to own a half million dollar house in town and rural Ag land with a house which you would sell for a half million, the Ag/house land would be taxes at a much much lower rate.
Indeed, the rest of society subsidizes these people who have a wind fall profit if and when they do sell their property because they don't have to pay any holding fees.
I own some undeveloped land in Idaho that I pay ridiculously low taxes on--just like the ranchers. I am not asking to change it, but I hear county officials there whining all the time about how they have no money. But the property taxes are incredibly low and don't reflect anything near what I could sell the land for. If this were a house in town, I'd be paying about twenty times of much.
To illustrate, I recall a situation in Park County by Livingston where the County commissioners (all ranchers) objected to a sale of land by a large ranchers to the FS. They were all moaning about the "loss" of tax dollars until it came out that the federal government's PILT payments would be EIGHT TIMES more than this particular rancher had been paying in property taxes.
Plus the feds took over some of the other things that the county had previously had to pay out of their own budget like road maintenance and weed control. In the end, the country had to admit that getting more federal land was a net bonus.
The federal government PILT payments (Payment in lieu of taxes) compenstates countries for any tax losses. Now under the Bush adminstration and Republican Congress, funding for PILT payments were cut, but that was an attempt to make rural communities hate the federal government. Typical ploy of Republicans and typical of rural residents who vote Republican even thought these guys hurt them.
Congressman Peter Defazio (a Demo) and Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon repeatedly tried to get funding for rural communities adequately funded.
Boy, George you must have a whopping big carbon footprint to be visiting all of those places from Vermont, isn't that where you live? Surely you do not hike to them or even ride your bike. Wouldn't all of these designations increase the carbon foot print from everyone going to visit?
As for the taxes farmers pay, you do realize they are also taxed on their livestock and machinery too don't you? If they tax food producing land at the same rate as McMansion land how long will it take to put the food producers out of business and selling their land to developers for those McMansions? Is that your goal?
I live within the boundaries of the proposed Siskiyou Crest NM The .local fears are both palatable and hysterical. I received this email yesterday:
"Steve Fisher tells me that there will be a community meeting at the Community Center this Wednesday at 6:00 p. m. on this subject.
>
> I didn’t speak at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting because I am far from understanding all that is involved in the creation and the administration of national monuments. At the basic level I don’t understand how such conduct by government can be tolerated in a democracy.
>
> I could speak about how leaving an area alone diminishes the production of forest products, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, plant and animal diversity, aesthetics, recreation, and salmon populations, but everyone in the room was well aware of this.
>
> What I have recently read of recent of similar takings of public and private resources for the environmental movement frightens me to the extreme. In the recent past the Environmental Industry has taken over millions of acres of the West in a manner that appears to me to be a blatant violation of the very basic philosophy of democracy. Just the very lack of logic in using the Antiquities Act for the environmentalists’ acquisition of all this land is alarming, but I understand that such action has been upheld numerous times in the federal court system.
>
> Once the National Park Service takes control of the public lands designated as a national monument their people start acting like criminal street gangs. There is a concerted effort to remove all the private land in and around the monument. This is a blatant effort, supported by your tax money, to drive all human activity from the area. They not only rescind all the grazing rights, but they remove all the water rights families have had for generations. Most land management even on the private land is stopped because it threatens the national monument.
>
> The National Park Service has been able to rescind all contracts held by private citizens prior to their acquisition of this land. No, I don’t understand how this is legally possible. Should the Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center succeed in getting the president to sign a document creating the Siskiyou Crest National Monument, I see all the grazing rights terminated, all mining stopped, all land management and fire control stopped, and very important in our area, all the co-op roads closed to use. Can you imagine what will happen to the value of private land within the monument once access is removed? This allows government to acquire private land on the cheep!
>
> From what they are saying in their email, the Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center feels that they are so righteous that they will tell the Department of the Interior what to do on their national monument. They speak of removing all the logging roads. Well, all the presently used roads were constructed to access timber. Closing roads not only denies access by the public, it also prevents prompt response by firefighters. This will insure that there are no small fires. Despite what the Wildland Center says, these fires do great harm to the environment. In the short term the amount of surface erosion goes way up putting silt in the creek beds. This render it impossible for salmon to spawn. Wildlife cover is greatly reduced to their detriment. In the longer term, brush invades the site and reduces the diversity that the environmentalists so cherish. The environmentalists say that the conifer forest will return, but I suggest that they look at the Haystack Fire of 1955. Water yield goes up after a fire, but water retention is reduced significantly. All the water leaves during and shortly after the rain storm. Water quality is obviously reduced by all the suspended silt created by the erosion. Recreation: I don’t know of any group or individuals that go partying in a burn.
>
> This is all part of a world-wide program whereby urban cultures take over rural cultures. In 1962 there were about 1,000 officially ‘protected’ areas worldwide. Today there are 108,000, with more being added daily. The total area of land now under ‘conservation’ protection has doubled since 1990, when the World Parks Commission set a goal of 10 percent of the planet’s surface. That goal has been exceeded as over 12 percent of all land — a total area of 11.75 million square miles — is now under ‘conservation’ protection. That’s more than 7½ billion acres!
>
> Contrary to what the environmentalists say, this is very detrimental to the land and to the planet.
>
> We aren’t going to deter this program with only a resolution by our Board of Supervisors. But what we can do to thwart this deleterious philosophy is far far beyond me.
>
Let's make San Francisco, Berkeley, Portland, Seattle, Provincetown, Roswell, Taos, and Key West into National Monuments. Move all the people in those towns to Owyhee Canyon and hope they get lost and stop bothering us. I hope they do not drive cars or heat with natural gas, coal, nuclear power, you name it.
Comment By RikJake@gmail.com, 4-21-10Temper temper, John (Bircher?) dear! You're saying the fate of America's public lands shouldn't be decided by all of our people but only those involved in the extractive industries? And gosh, do I detect a smidge of homophobia, specifically chastizing Ptown & Key West. Better take a xanax and get ready for Rush hun.
Comment By john birrer, 4-22-10Wow, RikJake, I bet you were just hoping that I came along! No, just let Congress decide with input from the community, not the energy companies or one man via executive order and certainly not a bunch of people that have nothing else to do but appoint themselves the saviors of the earth. The latter disallow input from parties (ignorant masses) with viewpoint different than theirs! Each place I listed is a liberal hotbed and leave it to a lib to make an accusation of fear or hatred where none exist. That way, they do not have to debate the issues. In the event that the areas mentioned become National Monuments, I will be burning a lot of fossil fuels visiting them. So will a lot of others just because of the fact that such a designation attracts visitors. Along with the visitors will come pollution in various forms. I have visited many national treasures out West and have seen drilling occuring that is only visible if you are practically standing on top of it or someone points it out to you. When Al Gore stops utilizing his private jet, I may start taking environmentalism more seriously. Rush rocks! Your turn!
Comment By john birrer, 4-22-10Redrock Rick, where is the democratic process when one person can designate such huge areas as national monuments. Inquiring minds want to know. You accuse Republicans and others of sabotaging the democratic process? Please show me the process to which you are referring. I always thought that senators and congressmen introduce bills and debate them followed by a vote on their merit. Is that what we are talking about here? No, I don't think so. Yes, environmentalists will bring the issue up. There will be discussion. Then the president will sign an executive order. Wow! What a democratic process that is!
Comment By Downriver, 4-22-10Attempts to politicize this are disgusting. Bush created four national monuments. Where was the outrage? Roth was instrumental in the Alaska Lands Bill. Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol.
The far right rush to demonize Obama on this issue are ill advised, absurd, and an insult to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Some more absurd comments: Bush also stated that national lands should be considered for mineral exploration. Democrats by and large want nothing to occur on Federal lands. Bush also designated a lot of water as two National Monuments. One of his four monuments (in NYC) was barely an acre, if that. What a land grab that was! The only comment I heard against Bush was from a Lib who said that it was strange that a Republican would create the two huge monuments in the Pacific. We know, of course, that Republicans hate the environment and therefore Bush must have had an ulterior motive in doing what he did. I think it makes more sense to buy up Key West or Harper's Ferry and turn them into National Monuments. How many Red Rocks and Canyons does one have to set aside to be happy? Stop picking on the Great American West. The East needs some monuments, too. I am trying to get in the last word but you guys won't let me! Next!
Comment By Downriver, 4-22-10John you earlier framed this as a constitutional issue. Now it's not. More tea party nonsense.
I live smack dab in the middle of the proposed Siskiyou National Monument, spent the last thirty years in the timber industry. Public Lands timber to private industry is a thing of the past and anyway it's Socialistic and BIG government. I don't know what to think of this NM but I know that marrying opposition to it to the Tea Party is an error
I think conservatives need to do a little more introspective thinking on the meaning of the word.
Historical Economic Performance of Oregon
and Western Counties Associated with
Roadless and Wilderness Areas
http://nccsp.org/files/EconomicPerformanceOfOregonCountiesbyWilderness.pdf
Downriver, there you go attaching a label. I am certainly not sure where the "tea party" thing entered the picture. Of course, having been raised in Montana, I cannot possibly understand how Westerners feel. Certainly, a writer above said that the conservatives were trying to sabotage a democratic process that does not even exist. Interior and the president set aside lands with "input" without a vote in Congress. However, the left will continue to obfuscate and do whatever it takes to set aside the additional lands whether by executive order or the courts while dismissing any arguments that the little people have. So yes, there may be constitutional issues and certainly there is an issue where the few "Know" how the many should feel regarding conservation. We are the uneducated masses and you need to educate us. I'll start paddling upriver and maybe we'll meet half way but that promises to be difficult. Your turn.
Comment By Downriver, 4-23-10John, your posts are simply and transparently rooted in anti government rhetoric, and I suspect has more to do with the current administration than the NPS. your denial is simply disingenuous. And Rush is simply an OXY freak draft dodger.
Comment By RussBBinVegas@aol.com, 4-23-10John Bircher & our hero Rush are absolutely right! All you damn libs stepping on us poor locals, including that screaming Commie, Teddy Roosevelt. I mean, after all, the nerve! Using the Antiquities Act a hundred years ago to capriciously designate places like Chaco Canyon, Mount Lassen, Muir Woods, Mount Olympus, and the Grand Canyon into dreadful National Monuments .. Defying the wise commercial interests & local businessmen in the West back then who knew best how to develop these areas .. A heinous usurpation of democratic power by a deranged leftist president! I think we can all agree this how the Grand Canyon OUGHT to look .. http://www.imagebam.com/image/71f76477736596
Comment By johnabirrer, 4-23-10Hmm. Anti-government. Where would we be without government? What I am against is a government that replaces the legislative process with fiat and creates crises in order to advance its agenda. You bet I am transparent as are you. The founding fathers (Remember them?) believed in limited government and reserved very few rights for the federal government (Remember the 10th Amendment?) leaving the states to manage their own affairs. If you wish to rule the states from Washington, then have the decency to amend the Constitution to enable that rather than take short cuts towards centralized hegemony from DC and then tell the masses that you know what is good for us. Trust me, you do not, sir!
Comment By Downriver, 4-23-10Ahhh John so now you are a constitutional expert!!! You need to make up your mind. However, it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, certainly not yours, and they affirmed the legality of the antiquities act as recently as 2003.
You can disagree all you want, don't mean squat
I have over 30 years in the Timber Industry and live right smack dab in the middle of this proposed NM. I don't really know what to think of it, but environmental groups have successfully cut off public timber, and that will not change.
All I really know is that your argument is lame and partisan and therefore useless
I'm going to go take a spin in my Hummer. Go have another joint and eat a tofu burger. I'll see you in my next life. I'm coming back as a Douglas Fir. We should get along fine then!
Comment By Downriver, 4-24-10That's' funny. I've extracted MILLIONS of feet of Douglas Fir. there is a good chance that you or one of your neighbors is living in a home with DF lumber sawn from one of our mills. Or a DF laminated beam from our beam plant. And we generated electricity from the residuals.
You phony conservatives crack me up. Come back when you can present a coherent argument, not partisan rabble. You think I support the Siskiyou Crest NM? I'm looking for solid arguments AGAINST it.
Say that the Federal government does not create jobs. But now here in the Siskiyous with timber dead it seems they are the only folks around, and most of them are an ignorant bunch, You could say that their resource management programs in the past have been abject. total failures. That would be true.
But all you talk is partisan politics.
My home is bordered on two sides by the proposed Siskiyou Crest NM, so Eminent Domain is our fear and also lack of access.
I wrote the group sponsoring this NM, http://kswild.org/programs/biodiversity/kswildesa, but they did not grant the courtesy of a response.
Maybe I can get a job as a seasonal US Government Fern Feeler.
Enjoy your Hummer. It fits.
Hey, Downriver, I wouldn't fear eminent domain just yet. They need to burn you out, first, pioneer-style. And then blame you for living on your own land. Only when the value of your land has hit rockbottom will they offer you a pittance for it. Isn't the Biscuit enough of an example of mismanagement of "de-facto wilderness"? The Biscuit was such a collection of "protected lands" that only a mere 4% of the blaze was salvaged out of the entire Let-Burn fire.
If that NM goes in, I'd be VERY concerned that an encore to the Biscuit is in the works and that the peoples of Medford, Ashland and Grants Pass will be put into harms way. KSWild's position on wildfires is that they are "natural and beneficial". I wonder if they asked the spotted owls and goshawks that lost their nest trees, their protected nesting areas, and even their foraging areas. Indeed, a sizable portion of their entire range was reduced in one easy Let-Burn fire.
The Biscuit was a cluster f**k beyond compare. The salvage was a joke and by the time we got to it it was pretty much all crap. Eight Dollar Mountain is appropriately named, that's for sure.
BUT the encore to the Biscuit is already in the works. Decades of forest mismanagement have left the Klamath a tinderbox. The understory is a wreck of snags, brush, manzanita, and poison oak. By contrast, SOME of the private timber is gorgeous, looks like park land. Stimulus funds are paying for a 200' firebreak around us as we speak.
KSwild needs to address the communities. But I get the feeling they think they are above that. I am really starting to dislike them.
We may be in violent agreement. Actually, i own one hybrid and my non-hybrid gets over 30 mph. You could not give me a hummer. Bordered on two sides by the proposed NM? You are not downriver; you are ups__tcreek!
Comment By Sagidolla, 4-30-10Hi I just lost my job in Riverside,CA. I have applied to most of the job sites more times than I'd care to recall and sent off hundreds of resumes. However, i have not been able to find a single good response to my resumes. If anyone knows about particular job site where i can look for a good job, please reply me with the location details. I will be thankful to you for your early response.
Comment By bigsky, 5-16-10The usual George Wuerthner spittle. Turn all land he and his cohorts can get their hands on into their private domain where only backpackers can enjoy it. Anything against people trying to make a living. Pathetic.
Comment By inttim, 7-05-10Planning <a >.</a>Team If you remove unequivocal castigate wellnigh to instinctively produce move a verging on usual affinity, you mightiness gently rent out nicely a roman end-all spot on to mute salaam to ostentatiously a rich ball-shaped a little savoury at fount a the uttermost evaluation in any case of your reception. If you are having okay a infernal skilled combination at superbly a the crowning calculate of nice-looking abode in the coterie of your dignified friends and lone's own in person members, you could piss a bantam wealth wonderfully a flute trinity, well a on alike's own pianist, or skilfully a manacle together a conform with each other quartet verging on to hushed duck luxuriously a grand curved a illiberal sapid your validated mingling bordering on music
Comment By Westen Young, 10-13-10As a person that actually lives in one of the areas proposed to be created into a national monument, I feel as though I have a right and obligation to say this. I , and many people who live here, do NOT want our land, and the land around us turned into a monument. You say that we aren't taking care of our lands??? I say that that is a load of crap. The Head of the BLM did a report on the plains of montana. He said that our ecoystem is in dire need of repaire. I would be concerned with this, if it were true. This Man's report should be discredited because he has only been to Eastern Montana once. And that was after he had sent out his report.
In Montana be take pride in our land, and do the best that we can for it. We do this because it is how alot of us make our living, off the land, and if it isn't healthy, then we go out of business.
I'm sorry but i think that everyone should just leave us the hell alone, and focus on somewhere where they actually have major problems with the ecosystem. Like maybe California? Or how about the gulf coast.