With new monuments in Nevada, Utah, Obama adds to his environmental legacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have not read through the verbiage of the designation of the Bears Ears Monument, but I am very familiar with the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. To just blindly "assume" that multi-use access will still be allowed is insane. The fact is, the potential is there, that it has the ability to completely SEAL it off from public access. Do you trust your Government so much, that you would just let them run amuck, and designate anything they want to, with a very outdated 1906 Antiquities Act? I don't........I like to protect, and stand up for my rights! That is why I formed my group opposing the Monument surrounding the Grand Canyon. The Monument has gained public support mostly because they are using the premise of protecting this land permanently from Uranium mining. The FACT is......President Obama, already signed a 20 year moritorium in 2014, protecting this area from any new Uranium mining. A monument is not needed to protect it from that!

I'd also like to address you calling the Bundy ranchers "thugs" as you put it. That family, has had grazing rights on their ranch for well over 90 years now. Before the BLM even existed. Along came government involvement, and they found new ways to impose taxes, and impose restrictions, and extremely inhibit ranchers from making a living. The Bundy's have filed appeal, after appeal, opposing the bogus taxes that the BLM is trying to force down their throats. That is their right to appeal it. By you calling them thugs, leads me to believe you trust the information that networks like CNN, or MSNBC spoon feed our country with massive MIS-information. They are not thugs, they are proud Americans, that pride themselves on feeding America. And refuse to give in to the over-reach imposed ALL around their ranch, that other ranchers finally surrendered to Washington. Instead of just going along with what the media tries to twist, try doing research on your own on topics, but that is asking a lot, and most in our country are too lazy to do these days......
 
Last edited:
I'm curious how this constitutes a "land grab" when the Federal government already owned this land?

At the risk of sounding extremist, I pay federal taxes and am proud to be a citizen of the United States.

This Bundy thug has grazed illegally on BLM (United States) land for decades and has refused to pay his minimal grazing fees, owing a million dollars or more. He has also made racist remarks about our President. Bundy's minions blocked traffic on an Interstate Highway. In addition, Bundy and his gang members have threatened Federal officers with firearms and have seiged Federal facilities with automatic weapons. His cases have been tried in courts of law and he has lost. Let's call a spade a spade, Bundy is a tax evading, freeloading, domestic terrorist with seemingly no respect for the laws of our great nation. He and his terrorist organization give a bad name to over 10,000 ranchers who legally and respectfully graze on public property, lands which belong to all Americans,

I'm happy that our elected President sought to further preserve and protect these special places for present and future generations of all Americans and people of the world.

I find it highly amusing, hilarious even, that you use a phrase that is often considered racist (call a spade a spade) to wrongly accuse another of being a racist!!! So funny!
In all seriousness, and with no disrespect, it is people like yourself who have all these opinions that are not based on fact who are the problem.

The history of our so-called 'public lands' is intriguing, if a movie were to be made of it I'm sure you and everyone else would see very clearly who the 'good guy' is. You would obviously be shocked, even. Alas, most people aren't interested in how the simple rule of law was made complex by devious characters through the years.
Our Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land...as far as I know) is explicit in what the federal government can and cannot do. The States created the fed, not the other way around...that must first be understood. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17...(the Enclave Clause), the Property Clause (Article 4, section 3, clause 2) in no way contradicts it.
I wrote this a few months ago....easier to paste it!

In order for us to fully understand what is at stake we need to go back in time…say, to Ireland! The coal mines…those poor families that some here may even be able to claim as ancestors. They were nothing more than slaves, even in their Homeland, covered in soot their entire lives…living in soot filled shacks, never able to get the black coal out from under their fingernails or out of their clothes…and eventually their lungs.

The worst part is that they had no choice. Think hard about that.

They lived in a time of Kings. Of Overlords.

The brave ones who came to the Americas knew nothing of where they were going…only that they must leave, that there must be something better. At great risk they came…usually as indentured servants. Just a nice way to say ‘slave’, however, it wasn’t any different than what they were fleeing.

I’ve often asked different people (including my children when I home schooled) if they would go if another planet was discovered that could sustain life. Imagine a New Frontier such as the Americas! Would you go?

Usually, people immediately think “yes!” and with the technology we have today we don’t think about what it must have been like for our ancestors…so, consider that you would lose all contact with your beginnings. To never see your parents, grandparents, cousins, friends…to never get a letter or hear their voice again…to forever wonder what became of them. To never see your home again.

Would you go?

Life in the New Country wasn’t easy, but, there was hope! Opportunity! Even riches!

We declared independence from our former oppressors, not so we could create yet another country just like it! Oh no! We wanted to create a country where everyone was free and at liberty to pursue their own happiness! Utopia? We can do this!

First order of business was to create ‘states’…hence the Articles of Incorporation & the original 13 States. Later, it was decided that these states needed a central government, like an ‘umbrella’ that would protect the borders of all, so a Union was created and called the United States of America and a Constitution, a ‘contract’, was written and signed by the States with the agreement that a Bill of Rights would follow…something that would ‘cement’ the Rights of the People so they would never come under a Kings rule again. Well, that is, IF the people had the guts to keep it.

In 1803 an amazing thing happened, Napoleon Bonaparte offered to sell the Louisiana territory to the United States!

“President Jefferson, however, was in a quandary. He had always advocated strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution, yet there was no provision empowering him to purchase territory. Given the public support for the purchase and the obvious value of Louisiana to the future growth of the United States, however, Jefferson decided to ignore the legalistic interpretation of the Constitution and forgo the passage of a Constitutional amendment to validate the purchase. This decision contributed to the principle of implied powers of the federal government.” https: //history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase

As we know a few other ‘purchases’ were made over the years and the same ‘equal footing’ was to be applied when Territories gained Statehood.

Nearly 100 years went by before the northern states (the original colonies) decided that the southern states needed to pay a national tax due to the products they exported, you see, the northern states didn’t have the agricultural opportunities that the south did…it was only right that they paid their ‘fair share’. Civil war is an ugly, terrible thing. Mostly it was written that it was over slavery, however, most of us know it was always money.

The northern states have long claimed the riches of our continent and later it became the national government, or perhaps it’s the same thing? When gold was discovered in the California’s the mountaintops in the west were retracted from claiming. The waterways were originally claimed as ‘navigable’ and belonging to the United States only if they were navigable ‘from and to’ the sea, then if they crossed state lines…then if a canoe could navigate them…now all the water belongs to the United States through the Clean Water Act.

In 1929 it was determined by Congress that the western states of Utah, Wyoming and Nevada would receive their public lands when they were populated enough to have a valid voice in Congress. Another little ‘tid bit’, the northern states had factories …if land became available in the west they might lose their workers! Can’t have that!

Do I sound like a ‘southern sympathizer’? Lol…I never thought I was until I studied history & realized that the wars have always been about land and who controls it. From the beginning of mankind, from Africa to Egypt to Japan, Russia, the middle east to here…all of it. The land. The resources. Power.

In our little corner of the world we can hardly see how we’d fit into this big picture. Yes…it’s 1.9 million acres, but, still…nothing much there! No ‘resources’, no water…artifacts, yes, but, really? What kind of ‘power play’ could that be? How could we possibly hold any kind of ‘key’ to the future?

We need to think differently. We need to see the connections we have with all the other states with ‘public lands’. Anarchy is alive and well…in Washington DC and it’s creeping westward, quickly.

Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

They tell us that WE are lacking the ‘recognition of authority’ when the truth is, we ARE the authority! WE are not recognized as such by the federal government that the States created! We, the people, are the law, we ‘hire’ men and women to represent us in Congress and on our streets, in our communities. As long as we the people exist and have that ‘spark of Patriotism’ in our hearts, anarchy is not possible.

What do we do? How do we protect our livelihoods? We’re outnumbered, out spent…outmaneuvered.

I will say this, I support Cliven Bundy and family all the way! No, I didn’t think what they did was going to ‘work’ in the manner I wish it had (people would have backed them up, the government would have realized how wrong they were, lands would have been transferred to the states…Utopia!). I highly doubt they thought it would work that way, either…lol.

What do you do when you see it all so clearly and others seem so blind? You educate!

What do you do when you look into the eyes of your grandbabies and know what is at stake?

You educate. Still knowing that all are not great students.

What do WE do to protect our corner?

We put our support behind these brave men and their families…because when THEY win? We win. Our troubles will go away. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree with their tactics…but, we back the rightness of their intent.
 
Thank you all for expressing your opinions in a reasonable manner. It works well when both sides of an issue are discussed with many points presented without anger. Keep up the good work. There are always good points on both sides of issue that should be made known, so that all will have good information on which to make a decision.
 
Joy thank you for pointing out that "calling a spade a spade" is racially offensive to some people. I had never heard it associated as such. I was referencing a quote by a certain person who was calling our president "The Negro".

I just read on FOX news that President Obama is not going to dedicate the Grand Canyon monument. Though our president elect has given little indication of any of his agenda it seems safe to assume the conservation of land or other resources is not high on his priority list.

Back to the subject of the OP it will be interesting to see over the coming years the impact of Gold Butte and the Bears Ears on the local communities. I believe that tourism and its associated revenue is a sustainable use of our public lands. Lake Bum what is the name of your group that is against the protection of the Grand Canyon? On lots of issues I like to read as many different viewpoints as possible before forming an opinion.
 
Alfred, you should apply for a job at CNN News lol..........asking for the name of my group that is "against the protection of the Grand Canyon" is pretty much automatically throwing me under the bus of Liberal narrative. My group is NOT against the protection of the Grand Canyon, well basically......because the Grand Canyon is already protected! The 1.7 million acres that is proposed in the monument, is surrounding the existing park on all borders. We are on Facebook, and the group is titled "Stop the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument".

Here is an example of what we have been up against. This article was published today, and is SO FULL of absolutely insanely inaccurate figures, but I will call them what they really are.......LIES. They claim to have 82% nationally, and 80% voter approval in Arizona. That is an all out LIE. I never had the opportunity to vote on this, nor did anyone else. They LIE to push their agenda. Here is the article, and I couldn't be happier with the outcome.....NO MONUMENT! :cool:

http://democrats-naturalresources.h...rotect-grand-canyon-through-national-monument
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joy
According to the people who live in the Bears Ears land grab, they will not be able to continue their lives normally! The Bears Ears land grab (and the illegal Grand Canyon land grab) are payback to the Obama funding ecowacko nutcases that are determined to depopulate the west, funded by idiots living in the blue cities that voted for the old woman in November! 100% of the people actually affected by this land grab are opposed to it!

Alfred, You might want to check a little history regarding your claims about the Bundys. their grazing rights date to before statehood, so there is no legitimate right for the BLM thugs to have any input!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joy
Joy thank you for pointing out that "calling a spade a spade" is racially offensive to some people. I had never heard it associated as such. I was referencing a quote by a certain person who was calling our president "The Negro".

I just read on FOX news that President Obama is not going to dedicate the Grand Canyon monument. Though our president elect has given little indication of any of his agenda it seems safe to assume the conservation of land or other resources is not high on his priority list.

Back to the subject of the OP it will be interesting to see over the coming years the impact of Gold Butte and the Bears Ears on the local communities. I believe that tourism and its associated revenue is a sustainable use of our public lands. Lake Bum what is the name of your group that is against the protection of the Grand Canyon? On lots of issues I like to read as many different viewpoints as possible before forming an opinion.

Opinions...are whether you think the color blue is prettier than the color green...it has nothing to with facts.
So, when reading others 'viewpoints' (opinions) keep in mind that your opinion won't be worth anything...that is why those of us who live next to these land grabs have zero respect for outsiders who see us as specimens.
I live in Mexican Hat, Utah...and am in the hospitality business. You'd think I would be pro-monument, but, you'd be wrong. Not because of a 'possible' economic benefit...rather, because I cherish our country & I understand what Inalienable Rights are. I comprehend our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, I've read the Federalist Papers and can quote our Declaration of Independence. The intent of our Founding Fathers is not lost on me, indeed, it is ingrained.
This is common among those of us who live here...it must be part of our DNA as we 'get' each other regardless of the racial, cultural or religious differences we may have, we share something much deeper and truly appreciate the resources, ALL of them, that our world offers. And we appreciate each other.
We do not appreciate the division that has crept into our backyards via people who see us as specimens. Who think they know how to better 'manage' us and our land. Yes...our land.
I'm very sorry for the masses who watch mainstream media and swallow all the heavily edited 'hooks'.
I know Cliven to be a very kind and sincere man. He is a gentle person who has never been 'educated' in the ways of media...or how to say certain things in a pc manner. His heart is still very pure...which is more than I can say for those who support him being held as a political prisoner for victim-less 'crimes' that go against the very fabric of our nation.
Perhaps...you should dig a little deeper, find the truth. The term 'negro' has never been a racial term out west...until Cliven said it. What does that tell you?
Is that the worst they could say about him? Yep.
 
Alfred, you should apply for a job at CNN News lol..........asking for the name of my group that is "against the protection of the Grand Canyon" is pretty much automatically throwing me under the bus of Liberal narrative. My group is NOT against the protection of the Grand Canyon, well basically......because the Grand Canyon is already protected! The 1.7 million acres that is proposed in the monument, is surrounding the existing park on all borders. We are on Facebook, and the group is titled "Stop the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument".

Here is an example of what we have been up against. This article was published today, and is SO FULL of absolutely insanely inaccurate figures, but I will call them what they really are.......LIES. They claim to have 82% nationally, and 80% voter approval in Arizona. That is an all out LIE. I never had the opportunity to vote on this, nor did anyone else. They LIE to push their agenda. Here is the article, and I couldn't be happier with the outcome.....NO MONUMENT! :cool:

http://democrats-naturalresources.h...rotect-grand-canyon-through-national-monument
Opinions...are whether you think the color blue is prettier than the color green...it has nothing to with facts.
So, when reading others 'viewpoints' (opinions) keep in mind that your opinion won't be worth anything...that is why those of us who live next to these land grabs have zero respect for outsiders who see us as specimens.
I live in Mexican Hat, Utah...and am in the hospitality business. You'd think I would be pro-monument, but, you'd be wrong. Not because of a 'possible' economic benefit...rather, because I cherish our country & I understand what Inalienable Rights are. I comprehend our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, I've read the Federalist Papers and can quote our Declaration of Independence. The intent of our Founding Fathers is not lost on me, indeed, it is ingrained.
This is common among those of us who live here...it must be part of our DNA as we 'get' each other regardless of the racial, cultural or religious differences we may have, we share something much deeper and truly appreciate the resources, ALL of them, that our world offers. And we appreciate each other.
We do not appreciate the division that has crept into our backyards via people who see us as specimens. Who think they know how to better 'manage' us and our land. Yes...our land.
I'm very sorry for the masses who watch mainstream media and swallow all the heavily edited 'hooks'.
I know Cliven to be a very kind and sincere man. He is a gentle person who has never been 'educated' in the ways of media...or how to say certain things in a pc manner. His heart is still very pure...which is more than I can say for those who support him being held as a political prisoner for victim-less 'crimes' that go against the very fabric of our nation.
Perhaps...you should dig a little deeper, find the truth. The term 'negro' has never been a racial term out west...until Cliven said it. What does that tell you?
Is that the worst they could say about him? Yep.

Very well said. Thank You Joy!
 
October of 2013 ONE man locked the gates to the beautiful vistas of the United States. Refused to allow people, some who had saved for years, to come and experience a once in a lifetime opportunity to SEE! To walk to the edge of cliff and look, breath...enjoy.
I, as an American citizen, resent that flexing of muscle, I refuse to comply with anything so un-American...so blatantly vengeful.
No...I will never support that type of power in my country.
 
Very interesting read here. Lots of very good give and take with respect for the most part. I hope it stays that way .
Just 3 things I'd like to chime in with.

#1 Just how much "protected" land do we need?
This is a question I have asked for years with nary an answer from anyone.

#2 Over in Calif. around the Bishop area (an area I know well from 65 years of going there) most of the land is BLM. When I was a young'un, from Bishop to Bridgeport there were hundreds on miles of dirt trails and two tracks that one could take to get back in the woods. Hundreds of miles. Starting about 30 years ago ( the advent of the tree huggers) more and more of those roads have been closed off from use. Now hardly any are available to get into the back country in comparison. The reason is "we have to protect the environment". We protect it all right, only those with horses or boots can use it. It gets closed off from the general public. This is what in some circles is called "mission creep" or " letting the camel's nose under the tent flap". There has never been a government that didn't seek more power over time.

#3 Land grabs. When I lived in Las Vegas there was a cement mine SW of town going out toward Parumph. It was a rather large "hill". Some of you may know of it. West of that hill is a Federally protected area. All well and fine. No problem with that.
Now, the mine closed and a developer wanted to build high end homes on the hill. What do you think happened to that property, miles from Las Vegas, but with good views from the hillsides?
Tree huggers (and yes that is a term I use) got upset and pressed a land grab to eliminate the development possibility on the premise that the "protected area" to the west now needed a, now get this, needed a BUFFER AREA around it. It wasn't enough that the area was already protected but now it needed another protected buffer area! If it needed that much protection why not have sought it originally? The only reason is to grab more land

SO in closing I'll ask once more- "How much protected land do we rally need?
 
I pointed out earlier there is nothing of value for the government on the Bundy land. This was done as payback - vindictivness - toward the Bundy family when the government failed to win a conviction against them in Oregon where our government murdered another Arizonan - Robert "LaVoy" Finicum. All the agents involved in shooting him are under investigation for murder - so I am not using the term lightly, I watched the video of his death - which happened due to another government land grab - this time over uranium [you see the Arizona uranium is not all the uranium our soon to be ex president either locked up or sold [via the Clinton State Department] to Russia. Rather than support this I question this and much more. I totally support the Bundy family - they are being squeezed because Harry Reid wanted their land and he managed to force out all the other ranchers and is mad the Bundy family fought back to keep their land. For the record, Bundy's are on the tip of the iceberg for how ranchers throughout the southwest have been treated these last 8 years.

Now, regarding the backlog of needed repairs for Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon, etc. Paying higher entry fees is not the cure. The reason is we already pay millions to use our "protected" National Parks- and that money all goes back to Washington, DC where it goes into the general fund [along with gas tax money, our social security deductions, etc.] and then the people we elect over and over and over again [term limits PLEASE] then decide to give us a little bit back for our parks and national monuments with the rest going for their social welfare programs and foreign aid, etc.. If they were so darned good at protecting our "artifacts" we would not have places like the rock marking the crossing of the fathers blocked off due to vandalism - inside Glen Canyon - and more. Fact is people will deface inside a park and outside a park. Making it off-limits keeps out the honest people, does nothing to stop the trouble-makers. Our public lands are meant to be just that, public lands.
 
This article from September is a good example:

http://freerangereport.com/index.ph...airly-burdened-impact-endangered-species-act/

A Cry for Due Process in the West:
Anatomy of a Broken System

CLIFFORD C. NICHOLS

In Otero County, New Mexico, the U.S. Forest Service recently fenced off the water in the Lincoln National Forest.

Its purpose? To keep cattle (but, interestingly, not elk) from sharing the supposed habitat of a mouse that has been declared endangered.

The result? To effect the public’s purpose of protecting an allegedly endangered rodent, the federal government has, for all practical purposes, taken from the ranchers, whose cattle are now deprived of water, the following private property:

  • Their water rights;
  • Their cattle, should they and their calves die for lack of access to that water; and ultimately
  • Their livelihood, if the deprivation of their water destroys the continued economic viability of the affected grazing allotments, and ultimately, the entire ranch itself.
Should these ranchers be made to bear the brunt of the economic impact of the public’s purpose to protect an endangered species? Logically and constitutionally speaking, they should not. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides, “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Therefore, logic would seem to dictate that the next question really should be, has there been any compensation given, or even offered, to the ranchers for this “taking”? Unfortunately, based on my past experience litigating such cases, I presume I am safe in believing that the short answer to this question is … not likely.

If I am correct, the next logical question would then seem to be, is there a legal remedy available to the ranchers to enforce their constitutional right to compensation? Again, logic and the Constitution would suggest that there should be. The clause in the Fifth Amendment immediately preceding the Takings Clause is the Due Process Clause. It provides that no citizen “can be deprived [by the government] of … property, without due process of law.” But in the instant case, have not the ranchers been deprived of their property without any due process being afforded them prior to the “taking”, or at any reasonable time thereafter? Sadly, in this instance I would again have to presume I am safe in assuming that the answer to this question is … most likely.

In cases like this, it is important to recognize at the outset that much, if not most, of the “due process” offered by the government is made available to ranchers operating on federal allotments only after the government has taken the actions that injure such ranchers. Usually, the government officials claim the immediacy of their actions is unavoidable due to litigation initiated, or threatened, by one of the environmental law firms that exist for the exclusive purpose of being well paid by the federal government (via legal fee reimbursements) to enforce laws like the Endangered Species Act. In other words, the government’s fencing of the water happens now and most often continues until the ranchers are able to compel the federal government and the environmentalists to admit they made a mistake — not a highly likely outcome under most circumstances, if any. Again, based on my experience.

Then, after the “taking” occurs, the first thing the law requires the ranchers to do if they are to seek a remedy is to run the gauntlet of a ridiculously futile, but expensive and time consuming, administrative appellate process. In essence, the ranchers are required to petition the very bureaucrats who inflicted the harm (i.e. the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management) to review the correctness of their decision and to admit they made a mistake. Likely? Not hardly. In fact, to conclude that it is almost always a waste of everyone’s time would understate the matter. But, under the law, it is mandatory. Until this appellate process is completed, the law prohibits the ranchers from taking their grievance to a court of law. Nevertheless, the injury to the ranchers’ not only continues unabated during this process, but often will only increase in terms of its adverse impact upon the ranchers livelihood during the passage of this time so wasted.

Next, the ranchers are then afforded the “opportunity” of spending an untold amount in time and legal fees to litigate the matter for possibly years in a federal court — an enterprise with little more hope of any success being obtained by the ranchers than was afforded them by the administrative appeal they just endured. In cases of this nature, judges sitting in federal courts sadly do not seem predisposed to agree with the perspective of people like the ranchers any more than did the bureaucrats and environmentalists who imposed the ranchers’ injuries for which redress is being sought. Or, to put it differently, rarely do these courts find that the United States government has made a mistake in enforcing laws like the Endangered Species Act, much less that the government owes people like the ranchers any compensation for their having done so. Typically, however, the court does deflect blame for the ranchers’ injuries from being placed at the feet of the government by further agreeing with the government that the environmental groups were correct under the law to bring the suit to compel the government to do the “right” thing. And then, to pour salt on the wound, the court will essentially reward the environmentalists for their troubles by awarding the environmentalists’ law firm huge attorneys’ fees at the same time that it denies the ranchers any compensation for the injuries or legal fees they have suffered. And then by way of delivering a coup de grace to the ranchers, the court “orders” the federal bureaucracy to continue doing whatever they feel is best to satisfy the environmentalists’ bidding. In the end, is it any wonder that, from the ranchers’ perspective, the judge soon comes to be regarded as just another federal bureaucrat, albeit in a black robe, whose authority is used to force the ranchers to accept their losses in a game quietly conducted on a fatally-sloped legal playing field? Essentially, the system has offered to the ranchers in the way of due process is nothing more than a public relations shell-game with everybody coming out a winner … except the ranchers.

To most reasonable minds, it would be safe to say that is NOT the kind of due process the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. In a recent press conference called to address the fencing issue in the Lincoln, Congressman Steve Pearce appeared to sidestep answering the question, “why don’t the ranchers file a suit?” He demurred by alluding to the futility of prior attempts by ranchers to litigate these types of matters in years gone by. Perhaps a more complete and accurate answer from the congressman, however, would have been: “Given the federal laws as they presently exist, everybody who has tried such litigation in the past has found it to be a rigged process that is a tremendous waste of the ranchers’ time and money … and, because neither I, nor anyone else in Congress, has done anything meaningful to correct the systemic flaws in our body of laws that have allowed this situation to continue, it is not likely this case would be any different.” Interestingly, this more accurate characterization of the problem might have also directed Congressman Pearce to answer another question that was put to him differently than he did, as well. In response to his being asked “Do you intend to introduce any legislation [to rectify the ranchers cows being denied water]?” he said, “It’s hard to take a one-county issue to the 435 representatives in the House, with the need for a majority … the House says it’s a local issue.” He then deflected attention for responsibility to cure the problem away from himself by indicating that, because the matter involved a water issue, the problem was one that really needed to be solved by the New Mexico Governor and her State Engineer, rather than by the congressmen, like him, in Washington, D.C.

What an incredulous attempt to knowingly sidestep his responsibility to at least try to protect his constituents … pure and unadulterated political mierda de toro! He cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that, under the protection of federal laws like the Endangered Species Act, The Clean Water Act and others like them, injuries to ranchers, loggers and miners, like those occurring right now in the Lincoln National Forest, have been happening throughout the West for decades? As such, it is anything but a “local issue” not worthy of Congress’ attention.

snip...... due to word length continued below......
 
Continued from #32 above:

Surely the names Finicum, Hammond and Bundy must mean something to Congressman Pearce and his fellow 435 congressmen. If not, perhaps the members of Congress should have a meaningful conversation, sometime soon, with people like Kit and Sherry Laney or the children of Wayne Hage. Perhaps such a visit would result in Congress being better able to grasp the scope and dimensions of the problem it is being asked by ranchers throughout the West to remedy. They are all ranchers who experienced first-hand a loss of their property, their freedom and, in one instance, his life at the hands of the federal government, without being afforded any meaningful compensation or due process prior to their attempts to seek redress for injuries they suffered by taking matters into their own hands and staging public protests. [1]

Interestingly, when viewed from that perspective, perhaps Pearce and his fellow members of Congress could be persuaded to acknowledge the very real probability that these named ranchers are, in fact, good men and women whose true desires are simply to make a living, be good citizens, obey the laws of the land and be left alone. Importantly, however, members of Congress may also be brought to an awareness that such people also may not be too dissimilar from the men and women who were forced by the injustices of another unfair and unjust government to author the Declaration of Independence, and then several years later were blessed to be enabled to present to the world their remedy to those defects as set forth in The Constitution of the United States of America. As such, they should caution our representatives that a problem might exist that warrants their present attention,.

The bottom line is this: a legal process that only gives the appearance of affording due process to those seeking redress for injuries caused by our government, but that in fact does not do so in any practical or meaningful way that would sufficiently allow that redress to ever be attained, should not be regarded by any of us in this great nation as affording people like the ranchers in the Lincoln their Fifth Amendment rights to which they are entitled. Importantly, it should be remembered that these are rights that our nation declared, at the moment it was first conceived, to be unalienable. Whenever it is revealed that an alienation of such rights is occurring so as to compel otherwise good people to protest its government in extraordinary ways, it should not be assumed without question that it is the people who should be compelled to silently accept those transgressions by its governments. Rather in a nation that cherishes freedom, it should be the duty of those placed in positions of authority to reflect upon such protests when they occur and, ask if they are, in fact, revealing of transgressions by our government that can be remedied? For after all is said and done, are not their protests really their cry for justice — a justice they are being denied in the context of the system as it exists today?

Hopefully, men like Congressman Pearce and his colleagues would agree with this proposition. Going forward, it would assuredly help some of his constituents in the Lincoln National Forest … and hopefully others as well, to whom he and his colleagues should be held accountable throughout the West.

[1] I do NOT mean they were denied the due process afforded them when some of them were prosecuted. Rather I am referring to the lack of meaningful due process that, if afforded them, most likely would have prevented them from reacting out of frustration in ways that ultimately resulted in their prosecution.


Mr. Nichols is an attorney licensed to practice law in both California and New Mexico.
 
Then there is this in Idaho over a flower.......... so is it any wonder people are fed up with these excuses to grab public lands and grazing lands and even access to rivers for fishing.......

http://freerangereport.com/index.ph...ous-slickspot-peppergrass-endangered-listing/

Ranchers nervous about slickspot peppergrass ‘endangered’ listing

http://freerangereport.com/index.ph...ous-slickspot-peppergrass-endangered-listing/
Idaho mulling options following listing of tiny desert plant
BOISE — It’s unclear if Idaho’s long-running battle with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a tiny desert flower will continue.
Gov. Butch Otter’s office is weighing its options after the USFWS again listed the slickspot peppergrass as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Otter, a rancher, has fought a listing since 2003, when he was a member of congress and helped develop a state conservation plan aimed at preventing the need for a listing.

“I wouldn’t say it’s over. We’re not going to roll over,” Sam Eaton, deputy administrator and legal counsel for the Governor’s Office of Species Conservation, said about the USFWS decision, which took effect Sept. 16.

The Governor’s Office is discussing options with affected stakeholders, he said.

Idaho‘s livestock industry worries a listing could have a major impact on some ranchers because grazing could be restricted in areas where the plant’s habitat is found.

Slickspot peppergrass is a desert plant with tiny white flowers that is found in Ada, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee and Payette counties in southwestern Idaho. It derives its name from the alkalized slick spots in desert areas where small pools of water form.

The impact of a threatened listing would be limited to those areas where the plant is found but it could be severe to those ranchers who live there, said Lt. Gov. Brad Little, a Republican rancher from Emmett.

“It’s a huge concern for some of those ranchers,” he said.

The USFWS proposed to list the plant as endangered in 2002, before proposing to withdraw that decision in 2007. But a lawsuit by Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project, which opposes livestock grazing on public lands, resulted in the agency proposing to list the plant as threatened in 2009.

After Otter and the state challenged that decision in court, it was overturned by a district court judge who ruled the agency didn’t adequately define when in the foreseeable future the plant was likely to become threatened.

In its recent final rule published in the Federal Register, the USFWS said the soonest the plant was likely to become threatened is at least 50 years.

The agency considers wildfires and invasive species as the primary threats to slickspot peppergrass and in a small victory for ranchers, it declined to upgrade livestock grazing to a primary threat to the plant, as some people who commented on the rule suggested.

In its final rule, the agency said any potential threats by livestock grazing are essentially nullified by potential benefits, such as reducing fuel loads.

“If you lessen grazing, it will increase the fuel load and fire is the plant’s main threat,” Little said. “If you look at all the empirical evidence, it looks like that’s the wrong thing to do.”

The rule states that the “evidence of the direct and indirect potential impacts to (the plant) … from livestock use is still relatively limited.”

Eaton said the listing’s affect on ranchers will depend on what federal regulators ultimately decide livestock’s impact on the plant is.

Sean Ellis

Capital Press

AR-160929877.jpg&MaxW=600

COURTESY USDA The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed slickspot peppergrass as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, reigniting a long-running fight between the State of Idaho and the service over the tiny desert flower.
 
And

Fed sage grouse 'protection' could prove deadly to ranching, domestic energy

Feds to restrict grazing, other activities on public lands to save sage grouse in the West
by Dan Elliot

as published by L.A. Times

“These plans, written as if the sage grouse were listed, are proof it was an underhanded, de facto listing scheme that further oppresses Western states,” Bishop said in a written statement.

Federal land managers have issued guidelines for restricting energy development, livestock grazing and other activities on public land in the West to protect the greater sage grouse, part of a broad effort to save the bird without resorting to listing it as an endangered species.

The Bureau of Land Management guidelines tell field employees when and how to apply new rules under a sweeping conservation plan announced last year.

That plan is designed to keep the distinctive ground-dwelling bird from being listed as endangered or threatened, which could bring down tougher restrictions and provoke a political backlash against the Endangered Species Act.

400x225

Unlikely allies are joining the quest to save the imperiled sage grouse
But Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, denounced the guidelines and called the sage grouse conservation plan a ploy by the Obama administration to block energy development and commandeer state conservation plans.

“These plans, written as if the sage grouse were listed, are proof it was an underhanded, de facto listing scheme that further oppresses Western states,” Bishop said in a written statement.

Among other things, the new guidelines tell BLM employees who review oil and gas drilling permit applications to start with applications for land outside important sage grouse habitat. Proposals for drilling on the most sensitive land would be processed last.

The guidelines instruct BLM staff to review livestock grazing permits in the most sensitive areas first, to see whether new protections are needed.

The guidelines, released Thursday, cover about 95,000 square miles of land overseen by the BLM. The U.S. Forest Service and state agencies are drawing up their own plans for land they manage.

Greater sage grouse live in 11 Western states. About 200,000 to 500,000 remain, down from a peak population of about 16 million.

BLM Director Neil Kornze said the guidelines are designed to be consistent but still give field offices the flexibility to respond to local conditions.

Like every step the government takes on sage grouse, the guidelines prompted criticism from both sides as well as some words of praise.

The National Wildlife Federation welcomed them, calling them an important step toward putting last year’s conservation plan into effect. “Let’s give those plans a chance to work,” said Kate Zimmerman, the group’s public lands specialist.

Other environmental groups said the guidelines were too flexible, too slow to take effect and too focused on making plans instead of taking measures to save the birds.

“The delay and the wiggle room built into these plans is not going to protect the sage grouse from the ongoing impact of livestock grazing,” said Greta Anderson of the Western Watersheds Project.

Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry group, called the priority system arbitrary and said it ignores work that companies have done to protect sage grouse.

“This is another example of draconian federal measures that ignore actual on-the-ground measures that states, counties, landowners and companies are already doing to conserve the species,” Sgamma said.
 
But it is okay to build solar cities and fry birds or windmills and decapitate formerly-endanged bald eagles.... /sarc
 
Frying birds? Ya. Just saw a report a few weeks ago about the solar fields south of Las Vegas being postponed for three more due to what they call "streamers". Seems the birds fly through the focal point of the mirrors and ignite in the air "streaming" smoke to the ground. Sounds like WWI fighter pilots! Pilots (like me:-) have been complaining of the glare from those fields since their inception.
 
A couple of posters on this thread have insuinated or stated that I should educate myself in regards to land management issues, particularly in respect to the Bears Ears and Gold Butte.

I am genuinely interested in hearing concrete suggestions and ideas on how these areas should be managed.

Should we abolish the NPS, USFS, BLM (for that matter, the Depts' of the Interior and Agriculture) and let states manage these areas? Should we let local communities manage these lands? Sell these properties to private individuals for casinos and ski resorts?

When is pointing an automatic weapon at a Federal LEO considered "patriotism" versus "terrorism"? (I'm thinking of the indigineous peoples who had their land taken away by the US government).

I am most curious in hearing thoughts on how we as a community or state or country take care of lands which are now under Federal control.

Thanks for posting!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top