National Monuments being considered for removal from the list: Some beautiful places we have had access to are being considered now to be no longer public lands. Be Aware!

Wanda Krack Loc: Tennessee, USA

Some beautiful places we have had access to are being considered now to be no longer public lands. Be Aware!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-monuments-pictures-20170426-htmlstory.html

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Wanda Krack wrote:

Some beautiful places we have had access to are being considered now to be no longer public lands. Be Aware!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-monuments-pictures-20170426-htmlstory.html

You misunderstand what is being done.
They will still be public land under the control of the forest service (which they were for a long time), bureau of land management etc. But they will no longer be in the National Monument category which prevents certain activities on/uses of public lands.

P.Beau Loc: EG.RI

or may go back to state ownership. also mining, timber, mineral extractions would be eased or allowed. Fracking? Monument designation intends to keep the lands as close to natural as possible.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

P.Beau wrote:

or may go back to state ownership. also mining, timber, mineral extractions would be eased or allowed. Fracking? Monument designation intends to keep the lands as close to natural as possible.

I don't necessarily disagree with that but this is one way for big government to grab land away from private use. Just ask some of the ranchers out west about grazing land they have been using for generations that has been abruptly taken away form them for no reason except to grab more land. A large portion of these lands the public never sees or travels into anyway and there is no reason to hold it.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

WayneT wrote:

I don't necessarily disagree with that but this is one way for big government to grab land away from private use. Just ask some of the ranchers out west about grazing land they have been using for generations that has been abruptly taken away form them for no reason except to grab more land. A large portion of these lands the public never sees or travels into anyway and there is no reason to hold it.

Whether there is a "reason to hold it", in somewhat misleading, in itself. The approaches to some of these areas would be adversely affected by mining, etc. And so there is a rippling effect that could be ecologically damaging to the surrounding areas. Nowhere would that be more adversely felt than those areas that are under water. And once you make such a move, the adverse effects cannot be undone.

ghill42 Loc: Colorado

The reason for this possibility is plain and simple. Himself wants the land to be accessible to Corporate America if they want it. Let's not be naive about his intentions.

MT native Loc: Big Sky Country — Montana

ghill42 wrote:

The reason for this possibility is plain and simple. Himself wants the land to be accessible to Corporate America if they want it. Let's not be naive about his intentions.

Could not agree more.

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

...and it's only been 100 days...the potential damage to this country over the next 1360 days is incalculable.

foodie65

windshoppe wrote:

...and it's only been 100 days...the potential damage to this country over the next 1360 days is incalculable.

Yes, but HE is making America great again. Isn't HE?????????????????????????????

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

robertjerl wrote:

You misunderstand what is being done.
They will still be public land under the control of the forest service (which they were for a long time), bureau of land management etc. But they will no longer be in the National Monument category which prevents certain activities on/uses of public lands.

.....and under more intelligent fire management procedures once they go back to state control.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

ghill42 wrote:

The reason for this possibility is plain and simple. Himself wants the land to be accessible to Corporate America if they want it. Let's not be naive about his intentions.

cdayton

The comments about returning National Monuments to state or private ownership/control are misleading. The monuments were established on federally-owned land some of which was donated by people such as Rockefeller or was part of a reservation.

Fayle Loc: Seward, Alaska and Rionegro, Colombia

MT native wrote:

Could not agree more.

I second that.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

P.Beau wrote:

or may go back to state ownership. also mining, timber, mineral extractions would be eased or allowed. Fracking? Monument designation intends to keep the lands as close to natural as possible.

Which includes limited access (no roads, lodges etc) so the only people able to see the areas are riders, hikers or research groups with permits.
The vast majority of the population cannot get access to most of the national monuments' vast land area. That would be the very young, very old, health problems or those who cannot get the time (or afford) to tour areas by hiking or horse back. Even if they could get the permits to do so.

stepha11 Loc: Trail British Coluimbia

It's said that people get the government they deserve? What on earth have you people done to deserve what you have?