Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Woohoo, Trump starts the fight to roll back federal land grab >

Woohoo, Trump starts the fight to roll back federal land grab

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Woohoo, Trump starts the fight to roll back federal land grab

Old 06-13-2017, 04:44 PM
  #1  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,322
Default Woohoo, Trump starts the fight to roll back federal land grab

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...monuments.html

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s recommendation on Monday to reduce the size of the new 1.3 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in Utah could foreshadow a string of battles to shrink parkland in states across the country.


The Trump administration is reviewing 26 other national monuments, and Bears Ears was the first to be flagged by Zinke.

The Interior secretary – who also said Congress should decide how selected areas of the site are categorized – was tasked by President Trump back in April with reviewing western national monuments that were designated since 1996 and total 100,000 acres or more.

Last edited by Fieldmouse; 06-13-2017 at 04:48 PM.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 06-13-2017, 05:45 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

I might have missed alot of important information, but why again is seizing public federal lands a good thing? Do you believe States have been good stewards of their own public lands?
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 06-13-2017, 07:20 PM
  #3  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,322
Default

Actually, I think the question at hand is has the federal government been good stewards of the land when one person on the way out of office can put so much of America's resources out of reach with the stroke of the pen as payback to supporters? It's about time the antiquties act get repealed. Only after Congress debates and passes new laws setting aside land should any new national park get made. The federal government shouldn't ever own more than half the land in any state and this is where Donald and I agree.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 06-14-2017, 06:02 AM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

I will answer in two parts, first yes, I believe the Feds have at least been better stewards of our public lands than States have, second part though is no I don't believe one person should be capable of wielding that ability and from what I understand, Congress is supposed to have that authority. And that I am fine with, but I don't believe we need to repeal the Antiquities Act. I believe like the ESA it has been misused by individuals and organizations to drive agendas. The original intent of the law I believe still has validity in actually protecting historically sensitive areas. The problem I see is that the law is that it was intended to designate lands already inside Federal Lands, not to extend Federal Lands or to place areas people with agendas have off limits. The second part of my understanding of this law was the designated area was to be an area confined to the smallest area compatible. This particular portion of the law I believe has been the most often abused portion claiming thousands/millions of acres in one fell swoop versus blocking off a couple sections that take up only a couple of acres.
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 06-14-2017, 06:37 AM
  #5  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,322
Default

I've been to many state parks around the country in my travels. I think they've done just fine with their land. They also have put their land to great use unlike the tens of thousands of acres out west just sitting there.

The biggest question I have, how many new monuments do we really need in this country. The act is over 100 years old. Every president has used it to put some land out of use. Obama has abused it and place millions of acres/square miles out of use. How much more do we need?
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 06-14-2017, 06:45 AM
  #6  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: central wi
Posts: 629
Default

I agree with a few acres here and there BUT thousands and even millions NO WAY
Hatfield Hunter is offline  
Old 06-14-2017, 07:39 AM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
I've been to many state parks around the country in my travels. I think they've done just fine with their land. They also have put their land to great use unlike the tens of thousands of acres out west just sitting there.

The biggest question I have, how many new monuments do we really need in this country. The act is over 100 years old. Every president has used it to put some land out of use. Obama has abused it and place millions of acres/square miles out of use. How much more do we need?
While we like to tell ourselves we have discovered everything on land, I find that that is not really a true statement. People continue to discover new things all the time. If we found something like say the stonehenge in the deserts out west, this law would provide protection to the site. Now I will say if they use this law to block off square miles than the law is being abused. I think we need to use the laws as they where intended to be used. Remove all the stuffing that previous leaders have done will be a step in the appropriate direction.

So is your view on properly managed lands being based on whether or not the land is being used for economical reasons vs just sitting there.
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 06-14-2017, 10:13 AM
  #8  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,322
Default

You know I can flip that question back on you. Is your view of properly taken care of land is just land that sits there? I believe there is too much land being improperly managed for the very reason it sits there like it has for millions of years. A state just may want to get more economical use out of the land and should have that opportunity to do so.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 06-14-2017, 10:25 AM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
olsaltydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
Default

I don't mind the question being flipped. I personally view it exactly as you described. The land sitting there is not being unused though. Recreationally the land is providing people with places to go for whatever reason. Campers, hikers, hunters, etc. are then spending money every year on gear, gas, hotels, food. To say it does nothing is I believe disingenuous. It just doesn't do what you believe it should be doing economically.
olsaltydog is offline  
Old 06-20-2017, 08:43 AM
  #10  
TRC
Spike
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 11
Default

Originally Posted by olsaltydog View Post
I don't mind the question being flipped. I personally view it exactly as you described. The land sitting there is not being unused though. Recreationally the land is providing people with places to go for whatever reason. Campers, hikers, hunters, etc. are then spending money every year on gear, gas, hotels, food. To say it does nothing is I believe disingenuous. It just doesn't do what you believe it should be doing economically.
Exactly!
TRC is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.