National Monuments Comment Period

[Steamy1]

On April 26, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order to review national monuments created since 1996 that are larger than 100,000 acres, starting with the Bears Ears National Monument.

Comments may be submitted to Secretary Ryan Zinke of the Department of the Interior. Comments may be submitted online after May 12 and will be open for 15 days for comments relating to the Bears Ears National Monument and 60 days for all other designations.

Comments may be submitted online after May 12 at http://www.regulations.gov by entering “DOI-2017-0002”

in the Search bar and clicking “Search,” or by mail to Monument Review, MS-1530, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

Please note that I am not offering a personal opinion, but since the members of this forum presumably visit National Monuments, they may wish to offer comments on this review period.

[AWCHIEF]

Curious, does this come under the heading of politics? Also not an opinion, just asking.

[Lily&Me]

I was thinking not, unless it becomes that way.

It seems to me to be information only, for readers here.

The OP is not asking for, nor inviting, debate, which could turn the tide very quickly.


Maggie

[dznf0g]

Very appropriate posting for information purposes, IMO. Suppose we can keep it that way?

[AirstreamJim]

This is excellent information. Rather than let the thread devolve into something ugly, I would suggest that the moderators lock the thread now. :-)

[Lily&Me]

Well, it hasn't devolved so far, so no need to take such adverse action.

Maggie

[RandyNH]

I would like to see it remain open so that it can periodically rise to the top and more can view it and use the information as provided.

When you think about it, it's very similar to people giving notice about Canada's anniversary pass or ours last year.

[Isuzusweet]

Just curious, National Monuments are what use to be called National Parks?

Also, review in what way? Relevance, sustainability, costs, range land, minerals, man power to maintain, downsize?

What is the criteria in which these "monuments" will be reviewed?

Our country (Canada) over the last decade has assigned massive tracks of land to new National Parks, knowing that once developed, they would be lost forever. National parks currently cover an area of 303,571 km², or about 3.0% of the total land area of Canada, let alone adding Provincial Parks, Ontario alone adding 82000 square kms.

We are lucky to live in massive countries that can easily support our populations whilst conserving our heritage and beautiful land. It is for future generations that we conserve and preserve.

Cheers
Tony

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by Isuzusweet

Just curious, National Monuments are what use to be called National Parks?

No, National Monuments and National Parks are not the same thing at all.

The pertinent facts about Bears Ears National Monument are that it was declared a National Monument in December, 2016 by President Obama--after the 2016 election--and in February, 2017 the Utah legislature passed a resolution asking President Trump to rescind that designation.

Much of the land in the area declared to be a National Monument is already part of a National Forest, which would not change regardless of the decision on the National Monument designation.

More details here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_...ional_Monument

[Mike1997]

National monuments are like the Washington Monument, FDR Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, and Thomas Jefferson Monument in Washington, DC

National Parks are Yellowstone, Glacier, Everglades, and Smokey Mountain National Park.

Most of this review was brought on by the new Secretary of Interior who was a Congressman from Montana and the bad publicity the Bureau of Land Management keeps getting for skirmishes with western ranchers over grazing rights. Remember the Oregon stand off and the folks arrested for taking over a federal building early last year??

Of course the use of eminate domain to expand federal lands and prevent leasing for energy sources is also a huge issue.

[xrvr]

This is mainly a states rights issue. Should the people in each state decide what the land is used for or should the federal govt? Political in that sense.

[pcskier]

Originally Posted by avionstream

This is mainly a states rights issue. Should the people in each state decide what the land is used for or should the federal govt? Political in that sense.

The federal govt should, as it's all federal land owned by all Americans and not by any individual state and the residents of any state. So no, it's not a state's right issue in my humble opinion.

[Steamy1]

Hi everyone,
I posted the notice as I felt that the Forum members would be interested as we all share a passion for travel and seeing our parks and monuments. I purposely did not express an opinion as I did not want the moderators to get nervous and remove the post. I hope it will serve its purpose by letting everyone who has an opinion, regardless of what it is, tp submit to the Department of the Interior. They need to hear from everyone.

With that said, personally I would enjoy a debate to see and hear the different perspectives and opinions on this important issue. I always learn something. If it starts getting offensive, I don't have to read it, and can search out discussions about tires or diesel vs. gas.

Thanks,

[Lily&Me]

So far this is not a political thread, but inviting debate on the issue may bring it to that and cause it's removal....why?

What does a debate on this issue have to do with Airstreams?

From the Community Rules:

"Discussions about politics, weaponry and religion are permitted only in association with the topic of this forum and will be closed or removed if they become disruptive."

Maggie

[kscherzi]

According to the internet....
***

To laypeople, the distinction between lands designated as national parks and national monuments can appear finite. The primary difference lies in the reason for preserving the land: National parks are protected due to their scenic, inspirational, education, and recreational value. National monuments have objects of historical, cultural, and/or scientific interest, so their content is quite varied. For example, national monuments protect wilderness areas (such as*Muir Woods), fossil sites, military forts, ruins (such as the*Gila Cliff Dwellings), and buildings (such as*Ford’s Theatre, where President Lincoln was assassinated).

I've observed than national monuments are generally small in size and generally don't offer camping, unlike national parks.

[Steamy1]

Hi Maggie,
I did not mean to imply that I was inviting a debate, just that I would personally enjoy one. But this is probably not the appropriate forum. There are plenty of other outlets for a political debate.

So to be clear, I am not advocating for a debate on this post.

Thanks Maggie!

[wkerfoot]

National Monuments are established by Presidential action under the provisions of the Antiquities Act. National Parks are established by a vote of Congress. Many current National Parks were originally National Monuments. I believe that Grand Canyon National Park was originally a National Monument established by Theodore Roosevelt.

Bill

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Steamy1

Hi Maggie,
I did not mean to imply that I was inviting a debate, just that I would personally enjoy one. But this is probably not the appropriate forum. There are plenty of other outlets for a political debate.

So to be clear, I am not advocating for a debate on this post.

Thanks Maggie!

I am glad to hear that.


Maggie

[SeeMore]

The stated reason for initiating the review was “end another egregious use of government power.” Without delving into the political reasons behind reviewing governance of national monument lands in excess of 100,000 acres in size created after 1996 (designated by Clinton, Bush, & Obama), the outcome of the review may have material impact on the use of these lands for the purpose of recreational camping.

In short, the review will address 1) which entity (state or federal) will control decision-making regarding each monument, 2) which legal authority (sheriff, ranger, etc.) will enforce law pertaining to activities/violations on the land, 3) adjustments to established boundaries (they could be decommissioned), and 4) determining management missions which will result in rules prioritizing utilization from among conservation (watershed/wildlife/plant protection), exploitation (resource harvesting - mining/forestry/grazing), preservation (cultural/historical sites) and recreation.

Failure to communicate our desires for retention and recreational access (with camping options) to national monuments may result in the loss of this privilege to our community. FYI, the monuments list includes Grand Staircase-Escalante which was the first in 1996.

[Steamy1]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

According to the internet....
***

I've observed than national monuments are generally small in size and generally don't offer camping, unlike national parks.

This made me curious so I used a filter on the NPS web site for "National Monuments" with campgrounds, it is a pretty long list. Maybe the filter is showing other facilities, but it reported 671 results. I doubt this is right, but it would be interesting to find out the number of campgrounds (and sites)out of the total number of National Monuments.