Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I couldn't read past the first page of hysterical drama from the left. Of course they can't comprehend STATES RIGHTS.
Quote:
During a signing ceremony at the Interior Department, Trump said the order would end “another egregious abuse of federal power” and “give that power back to the states and to the people where it belongs.”
No one is going to destroy that land, you fricken LIARS. It should be up to each state to deal with their land NOT the over bloated federal government.
Why is it that the left cannot allow anyone or thing (states) to be individually responsible? Why must they try to control everything and everyone? The left is a bunch of tyrants.
I couldn't read past the first page of hysterical drama from the left. Of course they can't comprehend STATES RIGHTS.
No one is going to destroy that land, you fricken LIARS. It should be up to each state to deal with their land NOT the over bloated federal government.
Why is it that the left cannot allow anyone or thing (states) to be individually responsible? Why must they try to control everything and everyone? The left is a bunch of tyrants.
Agreed. Just as it's up to the federal government to manage federal land.
This has nothing to do with current political parties, and everything to do with the conditions under which Utah (and other western states) were granted statehood.
"The history of federal land ownership has been largely one of divestiture and public use, not acquisition. As the United States expanded across the continent, it did so by purchasing or taking the land that became new states. (Among the groups it took land from were Native Americans.)
Over time, it transferred land to state governments and individuals, largely through homesteading and land grants, which allowed farmers to procure parcels of land for agricultural use. The government also tended to allow free use of unclaimed lands by ranchers and others, though there were skirmishes over the years when settlers tried to fence in public land or claimed land in Indian territories." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/u...west.html?_r=0
So you have it exactly backwards. When Utah was admitted to the Union, the federal government recognized the existing claims of private owners and granted other lands to the state to enable new states to finance colleges (these are the land grant college/universities) and basic public education. To this day, these now-state-owned lands are managed to provide income for school funds in these western states. The feds also granted lands to railroad companies, to help finance railroad construction. The remainder of the land was retained in federal ownership, some of it held for native americans as compensation for what was taken from them. And Utah agreed to this state of affairs at the time of statehood.
The feds can and do still transfer ownership of federal land to local governments and to individuals and organizations. But it is an involved process that literally takes years - basically, the transfer must be found to be in the public interest.
Presidents have been setting aside vast tracts of land for parks etc for many years for future generations to enjoy the country's natural beauty ,nothing illegal about it. however in this case its all about trump and his mad quest to delegitimize every aspect of the Obama legacy .
Why would Utah manage this land? It is federal land and it will remain federal land, whether monument designation is retained or not. The issue is that w/out monument designation, it is easier to obtain federal leases for such uses as cattle grazing and mineral extraction. Monument designation controls the management of land already in federal ownership, it does not control the management of any other land.
In case you are wondering, it is pretty hard to transfer federal land to another owner, even to a state government. The process takes literally years to complete.
I'm surprised that Bears Ears wasn't previously dedicated Monument status with all the artifacts, there was considerable defacement of caves, burial grounds and their contents. I assume this was just undesignated federal land. It appears that the local town wants to be allowed use of ATV's but that is a large part of the problem.
I prefer isolation when in nature, which one will not find in Zion or Yosemite
Oh yes you can. You ever seen the size of these parks? You can be miles away from anyone in either of those parks any time of the year by going backpacking. By car, you're limited to maybe a few percent of the park, and where everyone else goes.
Of course, those are national parks, and this thread is about national monuments. They're mostly unimproved as far as I know and all wilderness areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
