new: obomba 'protects' two MASSIVE areas of western US

[cheka.]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/312042-obama-creates-national-monuments-in-utah-nevada

President Obama protected two massive areas in the American West on Wednesday, including a swath of southern Utah that has been at the center of a contentious battle over land protections for years.

The areas newly protected from development and various activities are the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah and the Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada. Both areas are owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management.

The actions further cement the aggressive conservation legacy of Obama, who has protected more land and water than any other president under the Antiquities Act.

But the designations are among the most controversial undo Obama, with strong opposition among local and state leaders.

Obama said in a statement that the designations “protect some of our country’s most important cultural treasures, including abundant rock art, archeological sites, and lands considered sacred by Native American tribes.”

“Today’s actions will help protect this cultural legacy and will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and appreciate these scenic and historic landscapes,” he continued.

Obama created the designations using his unilateral authority under the Antiquities Act, acting with just about three weeks left before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

It’s unclear if Trump could unilaterally undo Obama’s designations, because it has never been tried before. Some Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), say it is within Trump’s power, though the Obama administration says the Antiquities Act does not allow monument designations to be undone.

But the controversy surrounding Wednesday's actions, combined with Obama’s aggressive use of his Antiquities Act power, could lead Congress to roll back the protections or limit future presidents’ powers.

The 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears area could be the most controversial of Obama's dozens of national monuments, in part because it shuts down any new leases for mining or oil and natural gas, exploration, along with other development and potential harms.

Utah’s political leaders and its all-GOP congressional delegation oppose the national monument, and pledged before Wednesday’s announcement to seek action through Congress or Trump’s administration to undo the protections.

The monument protects numerous sites that are significant to nearby American Indian tribes for cultural, religious and historic reasons.

The tribes have long called for land protections in the area. The Utah congressional delegation has recently pushed a legislative package it calls the Public Lands Initiative to protect some areas and avoid a monument designation, although it never passed.

Christie Goldfuss, managing director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, cited that proposal and others in recent decades as Obama’s guiding principles for the designation.

“The new monument responds to both of these recent proposals to include the areas where there is the strongest agreement about the need for protection, and to ensure that traditional uses and historical activities, including tribal acts, grazing and outdoor recreation can continue,” she told reporters.

Russell Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation, welcomed the Bears Ears designation, even though it is smaller than his tribe and others hoped for.

“This is an exciting day for the Navajo Nation, for our traditional leaders, for elected leaders across the Navajo Nation, and also the tribes that live in area who have always looked to Bears Ears as a place of refuge, as a place where we can gather herbs and medicinal plants and a place of prayer and sacredness,” he said.

But Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) slammed Obama’s decision.

“This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand,” Lee tweeted Wednesday.

“I will work tirelessly with Congress & incoming Trump administration to honor the will of Utahns and undo this monument designation,” he added.

I will work tirelessly with Congress & incoming Trump administration to honor the will of Utahns and undo this monument designation. #utpol
— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 28, 2016

Goldfuss said if that happens, it wouldn’t be through Trump’s executive authority.

“In terms of whether it can be overturned, no,” she told reporters. “The Antiquities Act gives the president the authority to create monuments, but does not provide explicit authority to undo them.”

The Nevada monument is also controversial, for different reasons.

The Gold Butte area is next to the ranch of Cliven Bundy and the site of an armed standoff between federal authorities and self-styled militia members in 2014.

The monument, pushed by outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) among others, protects numerous tribal sites, important landscapes, rare fossils and more.

“Today’s designation will better protect these cultural and archeological treasures, as well as the areas that are currently used by tribes for traditional purposes,” Goldfuss said.

[midnight rambler]

Gibs me dat!

[monty]

here is the map printed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal The yellow pin is Bundy's Ranch, the red line is Bund's now former grazing allotment



https://scontent.fbog2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/15697591_10154687413914003_2063129637044038199_n.j pg?oh=7c453e7ee261bbbf719424f9d8827bb4&oe=58F0EBB0

[monty]

Wiki Leaks Podesta email, National monument was delayed because of Masher Protest

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/44878



February 8

TO: John Podesta
FR: Mike Matz,

The Pew Charitable Trusts RE:

National Monuments At a crucial time in this final year of the Obama Administration, we perceive there to be a lull in the push for proclamations of national monuments within the departments and agencies that is concerning.
Part of this stems from external factors beyond anyone’s control, namely, the occupation by militants of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. But part of it is a sense we gather that key staff simply feel worn down by the lack of enthusiasm of, or even opposition by, departmental leadership. For those who have been effective advocates within the department and agencies, it’s been a Sisyphean task internally of late and they’re getting tired of the uphill struggles, at a point when they should be feeling very positive and upbeat about the prospects. Here’s why this matters right now.

[monty]

Many are saying Fox News did excellent in this report. I recall when talking with my mother about a president's ability to proclaim land as a ntional monument. She remarked, "well,national monuments are only a few acres". They are not like national parks.


http://youtu.be/jvLlXJllvig

https://youtu.be/jvLlXJllvig

[Cebu_4_2]

Trump will have his hands full, no wonder he is so proactive at this point.

[monty]

Lame Duck a$$ rejects will of the people.

http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/29/lame-duck-legacy-rejects-will-people/

Lame Duck Legacy Rejects the Will of the People


OBAMA SAID HIS “ACTIONS WILL HELP PROTECT THIS CULTURAL LEGACY” SHOWING HOW HE IS ALL ABOUT HIMSELF.

December 29, 2016 (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/) BLM (http://redoubtnews.com/category/blm/), Featured (http://redoubtnews.com/category/featured/), government (http://redoubtnews.com/category/government/), Nevada (http://redoubtnews.com/category/nevada/), Utah (http://redoubtnews.com/category/utah/) 1 (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/29/lame-duck-legacy-rejects-will-people/#mh-comments)

http://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RN-Congrats.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gold-butte.jpg?resize=666%2C381

Lame Duck Legacy Rejects the Will of the People

by Shari Dovale (http://redoubtnews.com/?s=Shari+Dovale)

Obama created two new national monuments this week, determined to leave an environmental legacy behind him when he leaves office in a few weeks.

The problem is that this is not what the people want. It is what career politicians, like Harry Reid, want.

Obama said his “actions will help protect this cultural legacy” showing how he is all about himself and his cronies, but the citizens have been completely ignored.… again.

Utah – Bears Ears

1.35 million acres have now been designated as a national monument. The problem is that legislators have been working on a bipartisan solution to keep the area for multi-use.

“This arrogant act by a lame duck president will not stand,” Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee responded in a statement. “I will work tirelessly with Congress and the incoming Trump administration to honor the will of the people of Utah and undo this designation.”

Congressman Jason Chaffetz was also furious (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/29/rep-jason-chaffetz-obamas-national-monument-designation-bears-ears-midnight-move-slap-face-people-utah/):
“The midnight move is a slap in the face to the people of Utah, attempting to silence the voices of those who will bear the heavy burden it imposes,” he wrote, calling Obama’s actions a “major break with protocol” because it did not have the support of Utah’s Governor, the state’s Congressional delegation, nor local elected officials or state legislators who represented the area.

Nevada – Gold Butte
300,000 acres have been used for this monument. This area sits next to the ranch of Cliven Bundy and is the site of the 2014 protest that gathered hundreds of Patriots together to fight the impounding of Bundy’s cattle.

The monument was pushed by outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. In his statement, Reid says (http://www.reid.senate.gov/press_releases/2016-12-28-reid-statement-on-president-obamas-designation-of-gold-butte-national-monument#.WGWpzH1M1sk),

“President Obama is a courageous man. I could not be more grateful to him and his team for working with me to make this happen, and for everything he has done to protect public lands in Nevada. By designating Gold Butte a national monument, President Obama has shown once again why he is one of greatest environmental presidents in American history.”

The lame-duck administration is going all out to make themselves relevant. It is time for Donald Trump to show them what the will of the people really means.

Share this:



Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/29/lame-duck-legacy-rejects-will-people/?share=twitter&nb=1)

15
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
15
(http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/29/lame-duck-legacy-rejects-will-people/?share=facebook&nb=1)
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/29/lame-duck-legacy-rejects-will-people/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1)
Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/12/29/lame-duck-legacy-rejects-will-people/?share=email&nb=1)

[palani]

Both areas are owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management.

I don't believe people comprehend that something might be defined in one manner and yet include other definitions or use. Certainly the BLM cannot own an area. They can own boundary markers, signs, etc but lack the ability to perambulate the area or announce (legal fictions do lack voice chords) their intention. Here is what Manwood has to say on the relationship between a forest, park, chase and warren.


That a Forrest doth comprehend in it a Chase, a Parke, and a Warren.

As a Forrest in his owne proper nature is the most highest fraunchise of noble, and princely pleasure, that can be incident unto the Crowne and royall dignitie of a Prince, so the next in degree unto it is a Liberty of a frank Chase. A Chase in one degree is the selfe same thing that a Park is, ad there is no diversitie between them, save only that a Park is inclosed, and a Chase is always open and not inclosed, and therefore the next in degree unto a frank Chase is a Park. The last and next in degree unto a Park is the libertie and fraunchise of a free Warren, And therefore because a Forrest in dignitie is both the highest and greatest fraunchise, being also a generall and compound word, the same doth comprehend in it, a Chase, a Park, and a free Warren: And for that cause the beastes of Chase, and the beastes and foules of Warren, are priviledged within a Forrest, as well as the beasts of the Forrst are: For every Forrest is a Chase, a Park, and a Warren, for the same doth comprehend every one of them in it, even as every generall doth comprehend the speciall: for every Forrst is a Chase, but a Chase is not a Forrest, but a part of it. And in like sort of a Park and a Warren: And by that reason, the killing, hurting, or hunting, of any of these beasts or foules, of Chase, Park, or Warren, within the territorie of the Forrest, is a trespasse of the Forrest, and to be punished by the Lawes of the Forrest onely, and not by any other Law.

Further, a forest comprises four elements. Lacking any one of them you have no forest.
1) vert (trees, shrubs)
2) venison (wild animals of a specific sort)
3) laws (as established to maintain said wild animals)
4) officers (including courts to punish offenders)

So what you have is a monument that lacks any element at all. Never perambulated (aka ... walked around). No verbal announcement made to the general public. No specific laws. No specific officers.

Tell 'em to 'GO FISH!'

[monty]

Both areas are owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management

That statement is completely false. Both areas are public lands that the United States claims to own. The Dept. of Interior through its Bureau of Land Management will manage the Gold Butte national monument. The Dept. of Agriculture will manage Bears Ears national monument.

[Joshua01]

Is the Kenyan gone yet???

[monty]

Land Grabbing Obama's parting shot at Bundy Ranch

http://rickwells.us/land-grabbing-obama-included-bundy-ranch-parting-shot-ut-nv/

Land-Grabbing Obama Included Bundy Ranch In Parting Shot At UT, NV

Posted on December 30, 2016 by Rick Wells (http://rickwells.us/author/rick1/) in Communism (http://rickwells.us/category/communism/), Democrats (http://rickwells.us/category/democrats/), Hijacked Govt (http://rickwells.us/category/hijacked-govt/), Obama (http://rickwells.us/category/obama/), Overreach (http://rickwells.us/category/overreach/), Tyranny (http://rickwells.us/category/tyranny/) // 0 Comments

Share With Your Friends On Facebook, Twitter, Everywhere


http://rickwells.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/738-chaffetz-land-grab-obama.png

Utah Governor Gary Herbert says there’s no other way to look at it, the people of his state are being targeted by Obama, noting that the entire state was opposed to the designation of the Bears Ears monument. According to reports the Bears Ears name has nothing to do with any similarity to the radar dishes on the sides of Obama’s head. In a dictatorial act befitting of Obama, 1.35 million acres were simply set aside by the stroke of his pen.

In what appears to be another act of immature indifference to the wishes of the common slaves also sometimes referred to as citizens, Obama set off thirty thousand acres in neighboring Nevada. That tract just happens to include the Bundy Ranch, which Harry Reid and his Chinese friends want shut down in the interest of the Desert Tortoise and teaching those uppity ranchers who’s boss. There’s always the chance of a lucrative “renewable” energy deal suddenly popping up with a Chinese fortune cookie attached as well.

Harry Reid said he was “overjoyed” to hear that Obama had made the designation, being the turtle-obsessed environmentalist and cattle-hater that he is. The reporter says that in Utah it’s a different story, apparently taking Harry Reid as the voice of Nevadans in his selfish elation. Unless you’re in line to abuse your power federal ownership of Nevada is not popular within that state, just as it isn’t in neighboring Utah.

They were able to find a guy who offered support for the government, citing anonymous instances where he says sacred sites were desecrated and destroyed. They also found a woman who stated that the Utah land is part of her sovereign nation, so that settles it, in her view.

Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is opposed to the land grab, and makes his case noting a complete lack of interaction on the part of the Obama regime and indications that they planned to do this unilaterally long ago. He vows to fight and is hoping that President-elect Trump will provide his assistance to correcting this flagrant parting shot at the American people and the people of his state by the usurper as he’s kicked off our property.

Chaffetz also promises to clarify the Antiquities Act, which actually restricts the land size to “small designations,” the source of the abuse that has permitted this and other huge tracts of land. Over 5 million acres have been appropriated under Hussein Obama, simply because Congress was unwilling to challenge this overreach-prone dictatorial federal government.

Now that it’s personal for Rep Chaffetz and now that the adversary is running out of time in power, and a citizen-friendly, respectful administration is taking over, Congress may be discovering their collective manhood, about 8 years too late.



http://youtu.be/PIZAGgDynLY


Please like Rick on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/ and on my website http://RickWells.US (http://rickwells.us/) – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar I’m also at Stop The Takeover, https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTakeover/ and please follow on Twitter @RickRWells (https://twitter.com/RickRWells)





Share With Your Friends On Facebook, Twitter, Everywhere

[palani]

Both areas are public lands that the United States claims to own. The Dept. of Interior through its Bureau of Land Management will manage the Gold Butte national monument. The Dept. of Agriculture will manage Bears Ears national monument.

Don't you think the keyword is the one highlighted above? Here is an alternative definition for monument


trophy (n.)
1510s, "a spoil or prize of war," from Middle French trophée (15c.) from Latin trophaeum "a sign of victory, monument,"

It seems appropriate. Harry S. Truman established federal zones over the several States by unconstitutional extension of executive power [he enacted a bill into law while congress was adjourned]. By accepting this challenge without struggle the several States were defeated.

This state of affairs is reversible should Trump decide to do so.

[monty]

Bill Goode on the Cliven Budy's Army facebook page is reporting Obummer has issued a much broader proclamation oj the Gold Butte "monument" area. I smell Harry Reid's hands in the writing of this second proclamation.

Since the "false news" debacle I can no longer copy and past from any "facebook.com/group" I cannot read any facebook group on a "www.facebook" group webpage. I must use "m.facebook" to read but it is copy protected. That is the reason for the screenshots.

https://s19.postimg.org/akew5h1nn/IMG_1426.png

[monty]

San Juan County Utah, County Commissioner Rebecca Benlly Utah stand against federal overreach



http://youtu.be/0xx1wS23yj0

https://youtu.be/0xx1wS23yj0

[monty]

Understandably the people of Utah and Nevada are upset with Obama's actions

United States Senator Mike Lee:


http://youtu.be/fce6i37EISM

https://youtu.be/fce6i37EISM

Speaker Gegg Hughes Sam Juan Press Confernce


http://youtu.be/VOHer_-wz48

https://youtu.be/VOHer_-wz48

[monty]

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz


http://youtu.be/mJal7V-_aac

https://youtu.be/mJal7V-_aac

[monty]

Nevada Senator Dean Heller's weak statement agains Gold Butte monument:

http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=3C139C2D-3775-45F4-830E-11F28DF96E87
December 28, 2016Heller Disappointed in Administration’s Use of Executive Order to Designate Gold Butte (http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=3C139C2D-3775-45F4-830E-11F28DF96E87)

(Washington, DC) – United States Senator Dean Heller issued the following statement after President Barack Obama utilized an executive order to unilaterally designate a new national monument south of Mesquite in Clark County, referred to as Gold Butte:




“I am terribly disappointed with today’s news. For years, I have urged for all new land designations, especially ones in Nevada, to be considered in an open and public Congressional process. Doing so allows for all voices and stakeholders to have an equal opportunity to be heard. Best of all, input from local parties guarantees local needs are addressed. In the future, I will continue to fight for an open process utilizing Congressional support to designate new national monuments,” said Senator Dean Heller.
Background:
Senator Heller’s opposition to unilateral designations of national monuments by executive order dates back years. In 2014 (http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/6/heller-discourages-president-from-using-executive-powers-to-designate-gold-butte-as-a-national-monument), he wrote to President Obama discouraging the use of executive powers to designate this exact national monument. Again in 2016 (http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=B25F2D57-6A25-4588-93E7-B900B3AD9926), Senator Heller opposed this designation and cited his success in passing three long-standing Nevada lands bills (http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=A378FE74-481A-4592-83B2-0C6FAB2E4344) through an open and public Congressional process garnering bipartisan support.

###

[Joshua01]

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz


http://youtu.be/mJal7V-_aac

https://youtu.be/mJal7V-_aac
Can we fire this Kenyan bastard early?

[monty]

Can we fire this Kenyan bastard early?

Can't we just hang him?



USC 16 431,

Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.



​United States Stautes at Large 128 Stautes Page 3272 - 3273 Repeal Dec.19, 2014

http://uscode.house.gov/images/stat/128/3273.png

[monty]

Can't we just hang him?



USC 16 431,

Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.



​United States Stautes at Large 128 Stautes Page 3272 - 3273 Repeal Dec.19, 2014

http://uscode.house.gov/images/stat/128/3273.png


Rplaced by USC 54 Section 320301. Looks like they added paragraph(a) to include situated on land owned or controlled by the federal govt.



http://uscode.house.gov/images/stat/128/3259.png



http://uscode.house.gov/images/stat/128/3260.png

[monty]

Utah Representative argues for Convention of States


http://youtu.be/YWTIgauiFZg

https://youtu.be/YWTIgauiFZg

[monty]

Trump can reverse Obama's last minute land grabs. The question is, will he? Too many have high hopes Trump will be a miracle worker. He probably will feed the military industrial complex.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/01/happy-new-year-obama-land-grabs-can-be-reversed-by-congress-trump-administration/


Happy New Year: Obama land grabs can be reversed by Congress, Trump Administration


January 1, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/01/happy-new-year-obama-land-grabs-can-be-reversed-by-congress-trump-administration/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) One comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/01/happy-new-year-obama-land-grabs-can-be-reversed-by-congress-trump-administration/#comments)

Mr. Obama has repeatedly abused his authority under the Antiquities Act to declare vast new national monuments, including on the high seas. This week’s monument designations have been strongly opposed by state officials and GOP congressional leaders, including the unanimous delegation from Utah.

Trump Can Reverse Obama’s Last-Minute Land Grab

The White House is trying to lock up millions of acres, but no president can bind his successor.

As he prepares to leave office in three weeks, President Obama is still trying to shape his legacy. On Dec. 20 the White House announced (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/20/united-states-canada-joint-arctic-leaders-statement) the withdrawal of millions of acres of Atlantic and Arctic territory from petroleum development. This week Mr. Obama proclaimed (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/fact-sheet-president-obama-designate-new-national-monuments-protecting) 1.35 million acres in Utah and 300,000 acres in Nevada to be new national monuments. But all the soon-to-be ex-president will prove is the fleeting nature of executive power.

These actions, like many others he has taken, are vulnerable to reversal by President-elect Trump. In our constitutional system, no policy can long endure without the cooperation of both the executive and legislative branches. Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress can enact domestic statutes with any degree of permanence. And because of the Constitution’s separation of powers, no policy will survive for long without securing and retaining a consensus beyond a simple majority.

As president, Mr. Trump can easily reverse the most unwarranted and costly regulations issued in the last few months. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a simple majority of each house may expeditiously disapprove such regulations, so long as the president signs the bill. A CRA disapproval would have the added virtue of automatically prohibiting any future, “substantially similar” rule without congressional action.

Mr. Trump can clear the way for Congress by halting all current rule-makings and ordering agencies to stop enforcing rules enacted in the last two years (or longer). After their defense of the administration’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws, liberals would have no legitimate grounds to oppose Mr. Trump’s temporary enforcement halt.

Mr. Obama’s unilateral actions, by executive order, proclamation or memoranda, are even more vulnerable. The courts have declared some void, including the immigration deportation orders. Mr. Trump can simply order the Justice Department to acquiesce in those decisions and save the public the trouble of litigating others. Mr. Obama taunted his political adversaries that if he didn’t get what he wanted from Congress, he would use his “pen” and “phone.” Those tools also work in reverse.

No president’s action can bind a future president, just as no Congress can bind a future Congress. When the administration withdrew millions of acres of Atlantic and Arctic territory from petroleum development this month, a White House aide told the Washington Post that such withdrawals are permanent. White House officials also claimed Mr. Trump can’t undo the new national monuments.

Yet the Outer Continental (http://quotes.wsj.com/CLR) Shelf Lands Act (Ocsla) and the Antiquities Act of 1906 do not even attempt to limit the president’s power to reverse previous withdrawals. In 2001 President George W. Bush reversed President Bill Clinton’s withdrawal of 50 million acres of seabed from exploration under Ocsla.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly abused his authority under the Antiquities Act to declare vast new national monuments, including on the high seas. This week’s monument designations have been strongly opposed by state officials and GOP congressional leaders, including the unanimous delegation from Utah.

The original purpose of the Antiquities Act was to protect archaeological sites and historic landmarks that “in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” After studying the president’s legal authority, we conclude that he can rescind monument designations—despite the cursory but contrary view of Attorney General Homer Cummings in 1938. The history of presidential abuse led Congress in 1950 and 1980 to limit the act’s use in Wyoming and Alaska, respectively. While Congress could limit it further, the law’s text and original purposes strongly support a president’s ability to unilaterally correct his predecessors’ abuses.

In other words, none of Mr. Obama’s monument designations or drilling bans is permanent. The grant of power to a president implies the power to rescind it. In Myers v. United States (1926), the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s power to appoint officials, with the advice and consent of the Senate, includes the power to unilaterally remove them. In revoking an official’s commission that was issued after Senate confirmation, the president is negating a specific and official Senate act. Similarly, presidents have the constitutional authority to terminate a treaty, even though they need Senate advice and consent to make it.

Another prominent example of this principle is the executive’s power to issue regulations pursuant to statutory authority. When Congress grants discretionary authority to issue regulations, the courts have correctly held that it also confers the authority to substantially amend or repeal them. The rescission power need not be expressed in every statute; it is implied.

The hubris that has marked this administration knows no end. Declaring that its policies will last forever won’t make it so. But it should stiffen the spine of those who wish to see those policies reversed sooner rather than later.

Todd Gaziano, John Yoo

Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-reverse-obamas-last-minute-land-grab-1483142922)
Mr. Gaziano is the executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Center in Washington, D.C. Mr. Yoo is a professor the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/bearsears9.png?resize=860%2C565European Press-Photo Agency-Wall Street Journal

Free Range Report

[monty]

Posted on facebook by a descendent of one of the 52 famileis who origionally settled the Gold Butte area

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10208475334743323&id=1305777102&_ft_=top_level_post_id.10208475334743323&refid=18&__tn__=%2C%3B


https://s19.postimg.org/4lcqcekyr/IMG_1431.png

[monty]

A different type of "Land Grab". This family has owned the Groom mine in southern Nevada not far for Area51 since the 1860s. They have been fighting the Dept. of Defense for several years. Now a federal judge has ruled they have to turn the property over to the government.

this is probably patented mining land. I believe this could apply. As Ponce said numerous times, the Supreme Court has never overturned a Land Patent.

This is important when you talk about establishing senior water rights and “land use rights” that predate later wildlife, fish, or environmental statutes. The Supreme Court has held that this pioneer/possessory right or title is good against all the world, except the United States as the actual legal title owner. However, once the United States Congress by positive legislation recognizes, confirms, or sanctions a “use,” or grants a right or title, then it is no longer a mere preference or possession. Once recognized or granted to a settler by an Act of Congress, that right could not be defeated by an employee of the Executive Branch (i.e. Interior or Agriculture) who failed to perform their duty to survey and record the settler’s claim, (Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898). Dr. Angus McIntosh Free Range Report

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/03/the-legal-basis-for-why-western-ranchers-own-and-do-not-rent-their-allotments/


http://youtu.be/sMl6iTkfrm4

https://youtu.be/sMl6iTkfrm4

[crimethink]

Utah Representative argues for Convention of States


http://youtu.be/YWTIgauiFZg

https://youtu.be/YWTIgauiFZg

Say goodbye to the Bill of Rights if "we" have another Constitutional Convention.

[monty]

Say goodbye to the Bill of Rights if "we" have another Constitutional Convention.

My oldest daughter was promoting a Constitutional Convention. I told her the same thing. Just leave well enough alone.

[crimethink]

My oldest daughter was promoting a Constitutional Convention. I told her the same thing. Just leave well enough alone.

Who runs the government needs to be addressed, not the structure itself.

[hoarder]

Trump will have his hands full, no wonder he is so proactive at this point.Trump will have his hands full maintaining the status quo because he won't lift a finger to get any of this garbage reversed.

[monty]

From a Malheur Oregon ranching family:

Friends:

My great-grandfather came to Malheur County from the Basque Country when he was 12 years old. He later bought a ranch in Arock to raise sheep and eventually his family.

Today, my wife, children and I work alongside my parents on the same ranch. We now run a cow-calf operation, relying upon public lands to graze our cattle for half of the year.

The reason that our family and many others can continue to build a community here is because we realize that if the land does well, we do well. To this end, we work with federal land managers to be good stewards of this land.

The families who live, work and play in Malheur County are the ones who have cared for the land every day, every week and every month for 150 years.

The people of the Oregon Natural Desert Association and KEEN Footwear will tell you that a national monument won’t push us out. They say that everyone who has access today will continue to have access in the future. They say that ranching, star gazing, hiking, hunting and fishing will continue.

But they never say at what level.

If roads are closed and current management practices restricted, how will we maintain miles of water lines that provide the most precious resource in the desert to not only our cattle, but all wildlife who reside here? How will we, as volunteer firefighters, get our pickups and water trucks across the land to put out wildfires? How will the land be rehabilitated after a devastating wildfire? How will we limit the spread of noxious weeds?

If we don’t have access, we can’t work. If we can’t work, we can’t live. What’s going to happen to the land if we go away?

That’s why we’re asking for your support to stand with Eastern Oregon. We have two short weeks left. Today, please consider making your voice heard by visiting OurLandOurVoice.com.

Elias Eiguren
Fourth-generation Malheur County resident

[monty]

It Matters How You Stand - Doug Knowles

https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/01/how-obamas-national-monumental-land-grab-can-be-undone/

Posted on January 3, 2017 (https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com/2017/01/how-obamas-national-monumental-land-grab-can-be-undone/) by Doug Knowles (https://www.itmattershowyoustand.com/author/doug-knowles/)




https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IMG_00711a.jpg?zoom=2&resize=470%2C353&ssl=1








https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gb_area_map-op.jpg?zoom=2&resize=720%2C606&ssl=1



https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gb_area_map-n.jpg?zoom=2&resize=720%2C470&ssl=1



https://i0.wp.com/www.itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gb_area_map-m.jpg?zoom=2&resize=720%2C470&ssl=1



https://i1.wp.com/www.itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/gb_area_map-s.jpg?zoom=2&resize=720%2C470&ssl=1Gold Butte National Monument - South







01-03-17 - THOMAS MITCHELL (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/author/thomasmnv/)

After Obama unilaterally cordoned off 1.3 million acres of Utah and another 300,000 acres of Nevada as national monuments, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes vowed to file a lawsuit (http://fox13now.com/2017/01/02/utah-ag-says-lawsuit-pending-over-bears-ears-national-monument/)and Nevada’s Attorney General Adam Laxalt called Obama’s action “a unilateral land grab (http://Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes has vowed a lawsuit over the designation of Bears Ears National Monument. Speaking to reporters moments after taking the oath of office, Reyes declined to say much until the lawsuit is filed, but insisted litigation is pending. "We're planning on filing a lawsuit," he told FOX 13. Reyes threatened the lawsuit last week when President Obama designated 1.3 million acres of land in southeastern Utah as Bears Ears National Monument. The designation sparked praise from environmental groups, Native American tribes and Democrats on Utah's Capitol Hill. The state's Republican delegation and local leaders have condemned it as a land grab by the federal government and an abuse of the Antiquities Act.),” but stopped short of threatening to sue.

The creation of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah and Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada has the self-styled environmentalists singing hosannas to the highest and the states’ rights crowd moaning with dejection.

Environmentalists have pooh-poohed legal challenges to the 1906 Antiquities Act in which Congress gave the president the power create national monuments, saying the courts have upheld the act several times.

But as I related (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/behind-the-bundy-bluster-is-there-a-constitutional-leg-to-stand-on/) a couple of months ago the law has never been challenged on the basis of its constitutionality.

Article IV, Section 3 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html) of the Constitution reads: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States …”

The question (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/does-congress-have-the-power-to-abdicate-its-powers/) is whether Congress has the power to abdicate that power and turn it over to the president, as it did with the Antiquities Act (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm) of 1906.
A Heritage Foundation essay (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/legislative-powers-not-yours-to-give-away) by a federal judge argues it may not:


Although the Constitution contains no explicit prohibition against Congress delegating its legislative powers (to the President or an administrative agency, for example), the principle of non-delegation is fundamental to the idea of a limited government accountable to the people. Indeed, the people, in whom sovereignty ultimately resides, carefully assign certain powers to each branch of government. The delegated powers are defined as placed in distinct branches of government for the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,” writes James Madison in Federalist (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp)No. 47 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp), “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

While the executive must exercise some discretion in the application of law, lawmaking remains the prerogative of Congress.



Arguably, Congress may not abrogate the powers and authority defined in the Constitution without amending it.

Laxalt issued a statement saying: “This unilateral land grab is the latest attempt for the outgoing president to add another layer of unnecessary federal control to our State. Although I am not surprised by the president’s actions, I am deeply disappointed at his last minute attempt to cement his environmental legacy by undermining local control of Nevada’s communities, and damaging our jobs and economy.”

Though resigned to the Gold Butte designation, Gov. Brian Sandoval worked to avoid some of the problems it would create. “My priority was to mitigate any disruption a potential designation may cause the surrounding private land owners, communities and recreationists,” he said, citing especially water rights.

The governor said he worked with “the White House and Department of Interior to ensure Nevada water law is adhered to and that the Virgin Valley Water District would have access to its water infrastructure for continued development and maintenance.”

Maintenance perhaps, but development?

The Obama proclamation states: “The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights, including valid existing water rights.” (2016goldbutte (https://4thst8.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/2016goldbutte.pdf))

Existing water rights, not new ones.

The proclamation goes on to say “nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to preclude the renewal or assignment of, or interfere with the operation, maintenance, replacement, modification, or upgrade within the physical authorization boundary of existing flood control, pipeline, and telecommunications facilities, or other water infrastructure, including wildlife water catchments or water district facilities, that are located within the monument. Except as necessary for the care and management of the objects identified above, no new rights-of-way shall be authorized within the monument.”Perhaps, the governor and the attorney general should discuss joining Utah in challenging the Antiquities Act itself.

They could also talk to President-elect Donald Trump about simply undoing the monument designations. A presidential right to declare implies a presidential right to rescind.
The Wall Street Journal pointed out (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-reverse-obamas-last-minute-land-grab-1483142922) recently, “In Myers v. United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52) (1926), the Supreme Court ruled that the president’s power to appoint officials, with the advice and consent of the Senate, includes the power to unilaterally remove them.”



The court said, “The power of removal is an incident of the power to appoint …”

Perhaps, Sen. Dean Heller could join the fray. He said in a statement: “I am terribly disappointed with today’s news. For years, I have urged for all new land designations, especially ones in Nevada, to be considered in an open and public Congressional process. Doing so allows for all voices and stakeholders to have an equal opportunity to be heard. Best of all, input from local parties guarantees local needs are addressed. In the future, I will continue to fight for an open process utilizing Congressional support to designate new national monuments.”

There is more than one way to flay this feline.
source (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-obamas-national-monumental-land-grab-can-be-undone/)


Comment:
January 5, 2017 at 7:27 am (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-obamas-national-monumental-land-grab-can-be-undone/#comment-69532)
“Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has put more than 5 million acres of federal land in his home state off-limits to development, pressed relentlessly for Obama to invoke his executive authority on behalf of Gold Butte. Reid intensified his campaign when the Bundys were jailed this year for a takeover at the Oregon wildlife refuge, arguing that any pushback would be minimized while they were incarcerated.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-new-monuments-in-nevada-utah-obama-adds-to-his-environmental-legacy/2016/12/28/e9833f62-c471-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.ce7719b48bab (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-new-monuments-in-nevada-utah-obama-adds-to-his-environmental-legacy/2016/12/28/e9833f62-c471-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.ce7719b48bab)

[monty]

Based on the essay by a federal judge noted in the previous post by Thomas Mitchell the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 is also unconstitutional because it abdicated Congess' lawmaking powers to the federal agencies and bureaucracies:

https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/how-obamas-national-monumental-land-grab-can-be-undone/


The question (https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/does-congress-have-the-power-to-abdicate-its-powers/) is whether Congress has the power to abdicate that power and turn it over to the president, as it did with the Antiquities Act (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm) of 1906. A Heritage Foundation essay (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/legislative-powers-not-yours-to-give-away) by a federal judge argues it may not:
Although the Constitution contains no explicit prohibition against Congress delegating its legislative powers (to the President or an administrative agency, for example), the principle of non-delegation is fundamental to the idea of a limited government accountable to the people. Indeed, the people, in whom sovereignty ultimately resides, carefully assign certain powers to each branch of government. The delegated powers are defined as placed in distinct branches of government for the “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,” writes James Madison in Federalist (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp)No. 47 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp), “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” While the executive must exercise some discretion in the application of law, lawmaking remains the prerogative of Congress.



Arguably, Congress may not abrogate the powers and authority defined in the Constitution without amending it.

[monty]

Mrs. B Stacy does a good job researching Nevada law relating to public land. This is her most recent video. I am going to post it in the Bundy Ranch thread too as it is relevant to their criminal cases. The video ia about 30 minutes



http://youtu.be/PZMkpPM0gMI

https://youtu.be/PZMkpPM0gMI

[monty]

Utah group ask Attorney General Sean Reyes to nullify monument and not waste their money in court
Legislature can nullify.


http://youtu.be/Y_22C0vgV1o

https://youtu.be/Y_22C0vgV1o

[monty]

Todd Macfarlane writes in RangeFire

http://rangefire.us/2017/01/07/a-realistic-assessment-of-utahs-role-in-the-public-lands-debate/


A Realistic Assessment of Utah’s Role in the Current “Public Lands” Debate — by Todd Macfarlane

January 7, 2017 - Government/Politics (http://rangefire.us/category/politics/), Land Use News (http://rangefire.us/category/land-use-news/), Property Rights (http://rangefire.us/category/property-rights/), Public Lands (http://rangefire.us/category/public-lands/), Ranching (http://rangefire.us/category/ranching/) - Tagged: federal (http://rangefire.us/tag/federal/), Gleave (http://rangefire.us/tag/gleave/), Oregon (http://rangefire.us/tag/oregon/), overreach (http://rangefire.us/tag/overreach/), Piute (http://rangefire.us/tag/piute/), property rights (http://rangefire.us/tag/property-rights/), public lands (http://rangefire.us/tag/public-lands/), Ranching (http://rangefire.us/tag/ranching/), Range (http://rangefire.us/tag/range/), RANGEfire (http://rangefire.us/tag/rangefire/), utah (http://rangefire.us/tag/utah/) - 2 comments (http://rangefire.us/2017/01/07/a-realistic-assessment-of-utahs-role-in-the-public-lands-debate/#comments)


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Federal-Fault-Line-1-300x208.jpg

The past few years have been very eventful on the Western “public lands” front. I put quotation marks around the term/phrase “Public Lands” because according to my evolving understanding, the true and correct definition of “public lands” are lands open to entry and settlement (i.e., there has been no prior entry or settlement), and upon which there are no prior rights or claims. In a nutshell, what this means is that public lands are those lands and resources upon which no one has made any kind of claim. But regardless of the proper terminology and reference regarding these lands, there is no question about the term “Debate.” A very lively debate, akin to the original Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate, is now raging in the West over jurisdiction, control and management of the so-called “public lands,” claimed by the Federal Government..


According to one line of thought, articulated by Cliven Bundy and Cliff Gardner, the federal government has never had any legitimate jurisdiction over these lands in the first place. According to others, including KrisAnne Hall, the “enclave” clause of the U.S. Constitution limits federal ownership of land to forts and ports and post offices. According to yet others, including Utah

State Legislator http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Grant-Gerber-1-300x236.jpg
Ken Ivory, such massive holdings violate the “Equal Footing Doctrine.” The late Elko County Nevada Commissioner, Grant Gerber, rode his horse all the way from the Pacific Ocean to Washington, D.C. to protest overreaching federal management, and died on the return trip as a result of injuries incurred en route. Current Elko, County Commissioner Demar Dahl and Utah State Legislator Mike Noel both argue the states could do a much better job managing the land and resources themselves. According to Attorney Fred Kelly Grant, insistence on coordination with state and local government would make a big difference. (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/24/point-of-agreement-the-federal-government-missing-the-mark-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/)



Not even counting Bunkerville and the whole Bundy situati9on, over the course of the last 2-3 years, and especially the past year, this debate has been ratcheted up several notches, with major MSM and social media debate, and ongoing live protests, including sustained protests about treatment of Dwight and Steven Hammond, the resulting Oregon Stand-off, including the Malheur Occupation and associated trial(s), the prosecution and trial of San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, ongoing protests about the Bears Ears and Gold Butte National Monument designations, and continuing concerns about the possibility of an Owhyee Canyonlands National Monument as well.


Despite all the disagreements – often focusing on the bases, means, methods, and approach advocated by the likes of Cliven and Ammon Bundy – however, there seems to be broad consensus in the rural West, and among state and local elected officials, about one thing: The federal government is missing the mark, has become an overbearing, tyrannical landlord, and has overstayed its welcome – in its role as primary land manager in the West. (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/24/point-of-agreement-the-federal-government-missing-the-mark-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/)



In at least one prior piece in our Realities that Nobody Wants to Talk About series, we touched on some of this (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/24/point-of-agreement-the-federal-government-missing-the-mark-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/). In this piece we are going to take a realistic look at Utah’s role in the whole discussion and debate. We’re also going to talk about one element or component of the discussion that seems to be a major sticking point.


According to Dr. Angus McIntosh, that sticking point boils down to the fact that a variety of split estate interests have already been disposed of by the federal government through legitimate prior entries, and ranchers and other productive beneficial resource users in the West have long since acquired private property interests in those split estates by prior appropriation and beneficial use, under a variety of federal laws, including FLPMA, which expressly recognizes the existence of, and is subject to “all valid existing rights.” (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/24/point-of-agreement-the-federal-government-missing-the-mark-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/)



But before addressing that sticking point, let’s look at Utah’s ongoing role in the discussion.
Although the federal lands transfer proposal is just one aspect of the overall public lands discussion/debate (which is clearly a somewhat complex equation, with many moving parts), it is well-known that Utah has taken the lead regarding the federal land transfer movement, passing state legislation in support of that proposal back in 2012, followed by additional legislation in 2016 outlining how it would manage federal lands if/when they are transferred. Utah also created what it calls the “Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office” (PLPCO), and the so-called “Constitutional Defense Council” (CDC), and hired former national BLM director, Kathleen Clarke to run with these efforts. All this was viewed to be a very bold move in assuming some sort of mantle of leadership in this movement.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Public-Lands-Debate-3.jpg

From 2012 to 2016, with Utah State Legislator Ken Ivory and the Utah-based American Lands Council leading the charge, the federal land transfer movement seemed to be gaining steady traction and momentum. Many rural counties were completely on board, and moving strongly in that direction, with other Western states getting on board or showing significant interest. During that time period Ken Ivory, and Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart participated in a series of well-publicised public debates through-out the state of Utah advocating the land transfer proposal. Even the Bundy Standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada in 2014 seemed to add substance to the movement by providing yet another clear example of federal overreach and heavy-handedness. Despite Cliven Bundy’s oft-perceived indiscretions with respect to refusal to pay federal “grazing fees (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fXZHTaYrFs&t=2s),” many Utah elected officials and political leaders joined the chorus condemning the Federal Government’s heavy-handed approach in Bunkerville. And between 2014 and 2016, Utah legislator (and retired BLM employee) Mike Noel led the charge on drafting and sponsoring the Utah Public Lands Management Act, which enjoyed broad legislative support in 2016, and passed with flying colors. And the Utah State legislature also approved allocation of substantial sums of money ($4.5MM initially, and ultimately up to $14MM) to litigate the federal transfer issue. There is no question, no other Western state has been as active or played as big a leadership role in the whole discussion.

But unfortunately, just as the whole discussion and debate were reaching fever pitch with the Oregon Standoff, and prolonged protests regarding proposed National Monument designations, in 2016 momentum for the movement started meeting serious resistance, and wheels seemed to start coming off the Land Transfer movement cart. There had been hope that President-Elect Trump might get on board to make it happen, but his appointment of Rep. Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the Interior pretty much dashed that hope.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Ammon-Ryan-LaVoy-Right-300x198.jpg

The first major set-back in the effort, however, resulted from the media firestorm surrounding the Malheur Occupation and Oregon Stand-off in early 2016. Other than a general feeling of dissatisfaction with federal land and resource management, there was really no connection between the so-called “Oregon Standoff,” and the federal land transfer movement. But despite the lack of any actual connection between the two, in the Mainstream Media narrative and rhetoric that ensued, fueled by an opportunistic environmental agenda, the Malheur Occupation and the federal lands transfer movement became connected in many peoples’ minds, and in the process the transfer movement was dealt a significant blow that it has been attempting to recover from ever since.

One of the main reasons that happened is because neither Ammon Bundy on one side of the equation, nor the American Lands Council and others leading the land transfer movement, on the other side of the equation, were well-prepared to control the media narrative coming out of the Malheur Occupation, which became very negative right from the get-go.

With the help of a more than willing Mainstream Media, Environmentalists seized the opportunity to run wild with the narrative to advance their agenda. According to Dave Skinner in a special report in Range magazine, “Simply put, the refuge occupiers didn’t have a clue how to fight a war of words on America’s media battlefield.” According to Skinner, “Prior to the standoff, Environmentalism Inc and other defenders of bad federal-lands policy were on the political defensive. But within hours of the Bundy Refuge takeover, professional Greens went on full-bore offense. Green cash and people poured into Harney County while home-office staff lit up the wires to news outlets nationwide.”

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Kieran-Suckling-1-261x300.jpg

Obviously, neither the refuge occupiers, nor the completely separate players behind the land transfer movement were prepared to deal with the ensuing media firestorm. Fueled by a combination of their normal liberal agenda and biases, coupled with a narrative provided by environmental organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Western Priorities, and Western Watersheds, the mainstream media ran wild with the environmentalists’ narrative. A common theme advanced by all those groups was that the Koch Brothers were funding all of it – that the Koch Brothers were funding ALC, and that they had funded and staged the Malheur Occupation — every part and parcel of it was dictated by the Koch Brothers’ agenda. According to that narrative, the Koch Brothers were calling all the shots and funding everything, and everyone from Cliven Bundy to Ken Ivory to LaVoy Finicum were nothing more than hapless Koch Brothers pawns.


http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/HCN-Patriot-2-262x300.jpg

A big part of the predatory feeding frenzy that ensued was widespread use of a whole host of inflammatory labels (like “extremists,” “militants,” “domestic terrorists,” etc.), coupled with asserted guilt by association (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/31/welcome-to-the-new-normal-a-land-of-labels-distortions-and-misinformation-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/). One of the most telling and damaging examples of this was Oregon Senator Ron Wyden’s widely-reported statement that the Standoff was “a situation where the ‘virus’ was spreading,” and strong action needed to be taken. (http://koin.com/2016/01/29/militia-at-malheur-virus-was-spreading/)

Exactly, what the so-called “virus” was is debatable. Some say it was “extremism”. Others say it was “the truth.” Yet others say it was the so-called “militia.” But from my perspective, the real thing that was spreading that the likes of Senator Wyden were most concerned about is the principle underlying the major sticking point that we’re going to talk about. It is what I have come to refer to as a “Gospel.” What does “gospel” mean? According to the Greek translation, it means “Good News,” or “Good Message.” It’s what I call the Gospel — the Good News — of Property Rights.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bundy-Terrorists-1-300x215.png

One thing is for sure, the entire situation, evolutions and atmosphere coming out of the Malheur Occupation caused a whole lot of new information to come out of the woodwork, and provided opportunities to find out where a whole bunch of people really stand on a variety of basic principles, including the fundamental principle of property rights. Although Senator Wyden is a liberal democrat from one of the most liberal states in the West, unfortunately, even so-called “conservative” politicians and policymakers in the state of Utah seem to drink the same Kool-aid when it comes to the fundamental issue of property rights
.
Unfortunately, some of the most telling information that has come out of the events of the past year is that most Utah political leaders do not believe in the concept of fundamental property rights — including private property interests in the split estates of the federal domain. This reality became crystal clear when the Utah State Legislature passed the Utah Public Lands Management Act which

included no reference to “valid, prior http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Tony-Rampton-1-300x289.jpg
existing rights.” Although the federal statutory clause is often completely ignored, even FLPMA — the Federal Lands Policy Management Act — expressly states that the Act itself is subject to all valid, prior-existing rights, which includes RS-2477 access rights, water rights, and grazing rights, all established by the same fundamental, guiding principles — prior appropriation and beneficial use. But unfortunately, instead of recognizing and embracing these fundamental principles, Tony Rampton, Utah’s Assistant Attorney General assigned to these issues, acting under the direction of Kathleen Clarke, PLPCO and the CDC, acting in concert with the Utah Farm Bureau and other entities, have gone to great lengths to pour cold water on the whole concept of fundamental property rights espoused by the likes of Dr. Angus McIntosh and Dr. Michael Coffman. While on one hand Utah’s political leaders have shown a strong united front in support of a land transfer, and have made a strong show of united opposition to the Bears Ears National Monument, on the other hand they have shown an equal lack of support for the concept of fundamental property rights, including “grazing rights” on federal grazing allotments, and whether such rights would have any more recognition or respect if federal lands were transferred to the states. In terms of basic, fundamental principles, this reality is a serious wake-up call.

Almost a year after these issues first started colliding in full force, I recently had a chance to spend a signficant amount of time with Piute County, Utah rancher, Stanton Gleave, discussing all of this with him, in preparation for a big feature story about the Gleave family which will be coming out in the Summer 2017 issue of Range magazine.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Stanton-Gleave-3.jpg

I’ve written about some of this before, but if you’re not familiar with the name Stanton Gleave, it’s a name you’ll want to remember and pay attention to (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/31/welcome-to-the-new-normal-a-land-of-labels-distortions-and-misinformation-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/). Gleave is a Utah rancher, who has been near the epicenter of all these issues – and especially the property rights issue – for years. He is one of few people, including ranchers, who really “gets” the concept of private property rights and how they apply in the so-called public lands debate.

Gleave presides over a sprawling family cattle and sheep ranching operation headquartered in rural Piute County, Utah – which some have suggested (and perhaps even hoped) might become the location of the next stand-off between ranchers in the West and the Federal Government. Not that Stanton Gleave is courting a confrontation or standoff with the federal government or anyone else, but few people probably understand as well as he does just how close that came to happening.

But one difference between Stanton Gleave and counterparts like the Bundys and LaVoy Finicum, is that Gleave doesn’t have a Facebook page. He wasn’t calling anyone to arms. He hasn’t been evangelizing any personal message. He doesn’t text or Twitter. He doesn’t even have a smart phone. And he didn’t go anywhere near Harney County, Oregon. But as conflict between the federal government and Western ranchers heated up in 2016, a lot of people, from politicians and so-called “patriots” to the media, started paying close attention to Stanton Gleave, beating a path to his door, and and watching closely to see what he might do. And for good reason, because a fuse was awfully close to being lit.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Stanton-Gleave-Gary-Allen-300x213.png

Consequently, politicians and policymakers were actively seeking him out, to hear his views, and to try to curry his favor and support, and he was summoned to testify before a state legislative committee. Although Gleave has also given many interviews over the course of the past year to everyone from NPR, SL Trib, The Guardian, Vice, etc., in virtually every case, they put their own spin on what he says and seek to distort his views to fit their own agendas.

The thing is, Stanton has been around the block enough to know that state management of public lands, alone, is no silver bullet solution. In our upcoming Range magazine story, we will discuss the Gleave family’s own experiences with hard-core government overreach, harassment, and heavy-handed tactics by state government too. But for now let it suffice to say that Stanton Gleave has a very broad and experienced perspective. Consequently, he’s not always sure which is worse, “one tyrant 2000 miles away, or 100 tryants 200 miles away” — especially if neither one of them have any respect for property rights. Although Gleave acknowledges that there have been vast improvements in the state’s approach over the course of the past 10 years or so, he was sorely disappointed with some aspects of the recently enacted Utah Public Lands Management Act, including its lack of recognition of valid, prior existing rights.


continued

[monty]

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Piute-Rancher-WD-Image-1-300x264.png

Just to remove all possible doubt about his position, Stanton Gleave completely and wholeheartedly subscribes to the theory that Western ranchers own “grazing rights” in federal grazing allotments. He completely and wholeheartedly believes that in exactly the same way Western ranchers acquired ownership of homesteads, and water rights, under federal statutes based on widely recognized natural law principles of prior appropriation and beneficial use, Western ranchers also acquire a private property interest in the split water and forage “estates” of federal grazing allotments.

According to Gleave, “The state doesn’t seem to get it either. Among other things, they don’t understand that there’s not really all that much left to transfer. Most of the split estate resources on federal land have already been long-since disposed of under previous Congressional Acts, and federal actions.”

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Stanton-Gleave-2-300x231.jpg

Although Stanton Gleave has broad natural resource experience, including years working for Kaibab Forest Industries in Southern Utah, given his livestock ranching roots and occupation, he is referring first and foremost to livestock ranching. Based on his upbringing, and study of the subject over the years, Gleave firmly believes that ranchers have “rights” – private property interests in the forage and water rights on federal grazing allotments. Those rights are and were acquired the same way as water rights throughout the West, and based on exactly the same principles — prior appropriation and beneficial use. (http://rangefire.us/2016/08/11/prior-appropriation-and-beneficial-use-realities-nobody-wants-to-talk-about-5-6/)

As Stanton and I were visiting and driving around Gleaves’ Piute County ranching operation headquartered in Kingston, he said, “Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about. . . . You know, Piute and Otter Creek Reservoirs raise some great fish.” Holding out his hands to demonstrate, he said “These reservoirs will raise 25-36” fish. They raise some really nice fish. . . . So now we’ve got all these fishermen and recreationists who think we ought to leave all the water in the reservoirs for raising fish and water-skiing. . . . But who do you think built those storage reservoirs decades ago? It was farmers and irrigation companies and water conservancy districts, that

built the reservoirs to store water in the winter to irrigate with in the summer. . . . http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Stanton-Gleave-1-300x256.jpgNow, based on all the pressure from the sportsmen and recreationists, what do you think would happen if we went out and dammed-up the Sevier River and started trying to use all that water just for raising fish and water skiing? Or, what do you think would happen if I tried to keep and use all that water here in Piute County? . . . I mean, this is where it comes from. It’s ‘our’ water, right? . . . . Well, let me tell you, if I did that, I’d be in big trouble, because people downstream on the Sevier River have a superior right to that water. They have a superior right that was acquired by prior appropriation and beneficial use. They are the ones who built these storage reservoirs. If I tried to dam-up the river and steal their water, people downstream on the river, from Sevier County to Delta would be here with picks, shovels, pitchforks, guns and lawyers, to protect and take back their water rights, because they are treated as Rights. . . . And exactly the same principles apply to the forage and water on federal grazing allotments. Ranchers have acquired a private property interest and a right to use that forage and water by prior appropriation and beneficial use. . . And those rights need to be recognized and respected.
So Stanton Gleave has summed it up in a nutshell. The concept of rights seems to be a sticking point. Rights have always been a sticking point. Among other things, the original Federalist/Anti-federalist debate was about protection of fundamental rights. Although that debate has never really ended, it did not subside until the Constitution was amended to include the “Bill of Rights.” And it is unlikely that this debate is going to subside until these rights are fully recognized either.

http://rangefire.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Gleave-Men-1-300x225.jpg

All the same principles apply to water, forage and grazing rights. Until there is a recognition that they are indeed rights, there is going to continue to be a conflict – whether it’s with the federal government, the state, or environmental groups. According to Stanton Gleave, these are rights that must be recognized and protected. They are the rights that six generations of Gleaves have built a livelihood based on, and according to Stanton, “The only way I’ve gotten where I am is by being stubborn and bull-headed, and if there is one thing I’m going to be stubborn and bull-headed about it is grazing rights. If the state of Utah isn’t willing to recognize those rights, I have no more use for what they’re trying to do than I do the federal government’s failure to respect these rights. At least FLPMA says ‘subject to all valid, prior-existing rights.’ But I can tell you this, ‘they are rights that my family and I will continue to stand-up and fight for’.”

What else is there to say?

http://rangefire.us/2017/01/07/a-realistic-assessment-of-utahs-role-in-the-public-lands-debate/

[monty]

Obama adds 48,000 acres to Cascade-Siskiyou Monument in Southern Oregon

http://www.opb.org/news/article/cascade-siskiyou-monument-expansion-obama/

Obama Announces Cascade-Siskiyou Monument Expansion

by OPB Staff OPB | Jan. 12, 2017 2:46 p.m. | Updated: Jan. 12, 2017 5:14 p.m.


http://ec-media.sndcdn.com/cJjdOcDtVDEM?f10880d39085a94a0418a7ef61b03d5275edf 83695e0cd6a5a31b706e9b67c5f14e4c68c5001e119da73b9e fc517752351154ee00c75ba00e0a44efc65


http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_limit,h_1000,q_90,w_640/20170112_cascade-siskiyou_national_monument8_uzbysj.jpg
Created by President Bill Clinton in 2000 under the Antiquities Act, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument at the California-Oregon border was expanded by President Obama on Jan. 12, 2017.


President Obama on Thursday announced an anticipated expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in southern Oregon.

The monument is currently about 65,000 acres in Jackson County, east of Ashland. The expansion adds 48,000 acres to the monument.

The president issued a statement announcing the expansion, saying his administration has tried “to protect the most important public lands for the benefit of future generations.”

“Today’s actions will help ensure that more of our country’s history will be preserved and celebrated,” the statement read, “and that more of our outdoors will be protected for all to experience and enjoy.”

RELATED COVERAGE

http://www.opb.org/images/upload/c_fill,h_200,q_90,w_300/20161129_Cascade_Siskiyou_monument_BLM_mc04mh.jpg (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://www.opb.org/news/article/cascade-siskiyou-monument-expansion-economics/)
Expanded Cascade-Siskiyou Monument Could Help Tourism, Hurt Loggers (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://www.opb.org/news/article/cascade-siskiyou-monument-expansion-economics/)


Bill Clinton created the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in June of 2000, when he had six months left in office.

During his 2000 campaign for president, George W. Bush criticized the original monument designation. His running mate, Dick Cheney, said during a visit to Central Point that Bush might try to undo the designations if elected president. Bush never did.

Oregon’s Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and various scientists and environmentalists had previously expressed hope President Obama would double the size of the monument in his final weeks as president.

Merkley lauded the announcement.

“Today is a great day for Southern Oregon,” the senator said in a statement. “The Cascade-Siskiyou area, where three mountain ranges converge creating a unique and spectacular landscape seen nowhere else in the world, merits the recognition and expanded protection that President Obama gave it today.”

Wyden also commented on the expansion, saying, “I am proud to see this unmatched landscape will remain rugged for decades to come.”

Detractors of the expansion have expressed concern that a larger Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument would hurt the region’s economy with limits on logging and grazing.

In a news release, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said the president’s decision will “have a rippling effect on ranchers, farmers, outdoor enthusiasts and beyond.”

“Our western heritage and love for the land is something we greatly value within our association. This is a huge hit for our members, our communities, and our state,” Jerome Rosa, the association’s executive director, said in the release.

The president’s announcement puts a possible monument designation in the Owyhee canyonlands of eastern Oregon even further into doubt.

President Obama has until the day he leaves office — Jan. 20 — to take executive actions, such as designating monuments.

More News

More OPB

[monty]

Wishful thinking? Trump is said to be "open" to repealing Obama's Bears Ears N'tl. Monument

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/12/trump-considers-ways-to-reverse-obama-bears-ears-land-grab/


Trump considers ways to reverse Obama Bears Ears land grab

January 12, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/12/trump-considers-ways-to-reverse-obama-bears-ears-land-grab/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) One comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/12/trump-considers-ways-to-reverse-obama-bears-ears-land-grab/#comments)

The controversial Bears Ears National Monument was designated by Obama in December and covers more than a million acres in rural Utah. It has been praised by conservationists, but slammed by locals.

Trump “Open” To Unprecedented Repeal Of Obama National Monument

President-elect Donald Trump is said to be open to the idea of repealing President Obama’s latest national monument — a potentially unprecedented move by an incoming administration.

Obama created (https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/obama-creates-two-more-national-monuments?utm_term=.cjxZYQG5A#.isbkjxZQ0) the Bears Ears National Monument last month. The monument — which is similar to a national park — includes 1.35 million acres in Utah’s rugged and picturesque San Juan County. The creation of the monument was a victory for conservationists and some Native American groups (http://bearsearscoalition.org/), but was sharply criticized by Utah lawmakers and some locals who say it will decimate the local economy.

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/sub-buzz-2961-1483753009-1.jpg?resize=860%2C546AP photo

Now, it appears that Trump could reverse Obama’s designation.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who opposed the monument, has “talked to high level officials in the Trump administration and they were open to suggestions Trump could roll back Obama’s Bears Ears designation,” a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

Lee, a Republican, has been among the most vocal critics of the designation and has championed greater state and local control of public lands in the West. Trump’s representatives did not respond to a BuzzFeed News request for comment.

Still, Trump has in the past avoided giving specifics about his strategy with public lands, and the communication between his team and Lee’s is among the clearest indicators yet that he could move to dismantle Obama’s late-term conservation legacy projects that added regulations to existing public land.

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/houseonfire2.jpg?resize=860%2C573AP photo

How exactly Trump might do that remains unclear. In a speech (https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzjvdR7sfIE&t=537) Wednesday on the Senate floor, Lee argued that “what can be done through unilateral executive action can also be undone the same way.”

Lee was referring to Obama’s use of the Antiquities Act of 1906, a law which gives presidents broad authority to designate national monuments without the approval of Congress. Lee also referenced a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can-reverse-obamas-last-minute-land-grab-1483142922) in which legal experts Todd Gaziano and John Yoo argued Trump has the authority to rescind Obama’s monument designations.

“In other words, none of Mr. Obama’s monument designations or drilling bans is permanent,” Gaziano and Yoo wrote.

No president has ever reversed a predecessor’s national monument designations and it remains legally uncharted waters. Other legal experts have previously told (https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/a-trump-presidency-may-be-just-what-the-wests-sagebrush-rebe) BuzzFeed News that reversing national monuments would take an act of Congress, though with the same party controlling the presidency, the Senate, and the House that could certainly happen as well.

In the meantime, Bears Ears remains an epicenter of the ongoing conflict over who should control public lands. Utah’s attorney general is preparing (https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/featured-content/utah-ag-sean-reyes-condemns-president-obamas-designation-bears-ears-national-monument) litigation to undo Obama’s declaration, and observers on both sides of the issue are watching for clues on how Trump will handle the federal ownership of vast Western lands.

Jim Dalrymple II
BuzzFeed (https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/trump-open-to-unprecedented-repeal-of-obama-national-monumen?utm_term=.itwKmZZwM#.kh4YX55Zb)

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/nomonument17.jpg?resize=860%2C480
Free Range Report

[monty]

Letter to Dept. of Interior Secretary Zinke. Free Range Report "BEARS EARS IS A SPECIAL INTEREST "SCHEME", NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.


https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/navajofamilylarge.jpg?zoom=2&resize=601%2C144

Letter to Zinke: Bears Ears is a special interest ‘scheme,’ not the will of the people

February 5, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/05/letter-to-zinke-bears-ears-is-a-special-interest-scheme-not-the-will-of-the-people/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) Leave a comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/05/letter-to-zinke-bears-ears-is-a-special-interest-scheme-not-the-will-of-the-people/#respond)


As the details emerge of the new Monument, it is clear that scheming special interest groups have been crafting the details of this Monument for years. These special interest groups, who derided the County Commissioners over their concerns about such basic things as roads, hunting, and wood gathering, are now feverishly filing law suits and gathering petitions to coerce the BLM into closing roads, limiting access, and keeping people away from this area.


Open letter by Phil Lyman

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PhilLyman.jpg?resize=195%2C255

Phil Lyman
Commission Chairman
San Juan County, Utah

Secretary Ryan Zinke
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington D.C.

Dear Secretary Zinke,

The Nation continues to watch as President Trump fills key positions in his new Administration. For us in San Juan County, Utah, this last election was a choice between a centralized government dominated by the politics of special interest groups versus the hope for a return to a Nation ruled by Law, where the rights of the one are not subject to the petitions and demands of the many. Never has the contrast between two Presidential candidates been so stark or the outcome so consequential.

As past-President Obama proclaimed the Bears Ears National Monument in the final hours of his presidency, those of us who live next to this massive new Monument felt betrayed by an administration more concerned about the politics of power than the process of our Representative form of government. After years of honest and earnest discussions on the part of San Juan County with our local citizens – conservationists and Native Americans fully included – and at the invitation of our Elected Congressmen and Senators, with the State Legislature, the Governor’s office, and with MOUs between the County, the Navajo Nation, and the local Native American group Utah Dine’ Bikeyah, our local efforts were disregarded, first at the congressional level and then in full by the president himself.

As the details emerge of the new Monument, it is clear that scheming special interest groups have been crafting the details of this Monument for years. These special interest groups, who derided the County Commissioners over their concerns about such basic things as roads, hunting, and wood gathering, are now feverishly filing law suits and gathering petitions to coerce the BLM into closing roads, limiting access, and keeping people away from this area.

I have learned since becoming an elected County Commissioner that schemers are always ten steps ahead of people of good will. Those of us who love this place enough to sacrifice for it, to care for it, to call it home; those for whom this land is not a playground but our very soul, we are troubled by decisions made in Washington D.C. without the benefit of knowledge but rather the misinformation of maligning, accusing, agenda-driven organizations who have found a welcome mat at the White House for the past twenty-eight years. Buying influence and, with mob rule, circumventing the representative form of government that is the foundation of this Republic, these groups have bullied their way into becoming a quasi-administration.

The media have been complicit, or bought off, in this grand scheme. When President Trump refers to “the swamp,” surely these are the swamp monsters that he has in mind. This Monument declaration was not at all surprising to those of us who have come to know the antics of these groups. After all, Blanding was the center of the 2009 raids carried out by BLM Law Enforcement Officer Dan Love. The citizens of our town have been pleading for redress for nearly a decade, yet the only thing we have received from the BLM is more targeting and more abuse from their gestapo-styled law enforcement gunslingers. I, and another local citizen, personally went to jail for a trespass that never occurred, because of false charges brought by disingenuous U.S. Attorneys and judges who are in cahoots with attorneys from the Wilderness Society and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Others have been falsely accused, charged, and prosecuted for no reason other than speaking in favor of local voices. If you want to locate the stench coming from the “swamp” you need look no further than these unholy alliances.

Locals recognize the great blessing it is to have large areas in San Juan County that are publicly accessible. Our county has always placed a premium on stewardship – thus the pristine condition of the lands in our County. We are not simply the best stewards of this land, we are the rightful stewards, and when I say “we” I mean the people who live here, Navajo, Caucasian, Hispanic, Ute, Black, male, female, rich, poor, and every citizen in between. The geographic border that defines San Juan County or the border that defines Utah is not there to simply define federal territories. Those borders mean something. They are political subdivisions, wherein broad and indefinite powers necessary to intelligently manage the pooled resources of our communities and counties was retained. These are not Federal administrative units. The powers assumed by Washington were not delegated to federal agencies, and certainly were not relegated to a counterfeit and sinister groups of self-appointed masters like those at the Wilderness advocacy clubs.

This is an excerpt from the latest newsletter from the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance”
“as the local conservation group that has worked on Utah wilderness for more than 30 years, and knows these lands inside out, Rep. Zinke needs to meet with our staff in Moab. Our folks in Moab are closer to parts of the monument than any town in San Juan County. We’ll gladly accommodate his schedule so we can show off what our nearly 13,000 members know to be true: that these public lands are among the nation’s most wild, most fragile and most precious, and that his job is one that will require true vision.”



This is false! The entire Monument – all two-thousand plus square miles – is in San Juan County. Moab is in a neighboring county which sits north of any part of the monument. The San Juan County towns of Mexican Hat, Bluff, White Mesa, Blanding, and Monticello sit next to this leviathan. Moab is packed with tourist shops and tourists. The locals who have called themselves locals of Moab for the past generation are being pushed aside by the recreation industry claiming conservation as their objective while selling the landscape to the highest paying visitor. They threaten and intimidate citizens and federal agencies alike. They author letters then have them signed by so-called “grass-roots” San Juan County people. They have staff attorneys and a host of other attorneys who, apparently motivated by some form of guilt for having made more money than they feel was honest, work for free from their offices in Washington D.C. or New York, or Los Angeles, or Salt Lake. Whatever the motivation, it is not proper, and their primary skills are stratagem and deceit.

They have perfected the art of misrepresentation, (as you and President Trump have witnessed). Anyone who believes them – seriously believes them – must have their own judgement called into question. Please do not entertain these fawning fakes with their bogus beneficence. To do so would be seen as validation of their manipulation, lies and slander.

Please come to San Juan County; meet with the County Commissioners; meet with the citizens. Let us take you to some of the places in this area now claimed by these groups as the new Bears Ears Monument. These places are important to us. They are part of our history. They are loved and protected far beyond any protection that can be accomplished by the stroke of a pen. If anything, this declaration threatens these special places that have, at once, become less special and more marketable by the outdoor industry retailers and special interest groups that have spoiled Moab.
We trust that if you come to San Juan County you will call upon the County Commissioners. Whether you are swayed by the calumny of the special interest groups or not, one thing remains certain – the authority to make local decision was placed, by the people, in the hands of elected representatives acting within the confines of their respective office. That is America, and respecting the Republic and its elected representatives is what will make America Great Again.

We look forward to your visit to San Juan County, one of the most naturally beautiful and naturally Free places remaining these United States of America.

Very sincerely,

Phil Lyman

Chairman, San Juan County Board of Commissioners
02/04/2017

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/houseonfire.jpg?resize=635%2C346

Free Range Report

Related

Interior nominee promises to revisit Obama monuments takeovers (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/18/interior-nominee-promises-to-revisit-obama-monuments-takeovers/)January 18, 2017In "Department of the Interior"
Utah leaders issue resolution to undo decades of federal monuments injustices (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/29/utah-leaders-issue-resolution-to-undo-decades-of-federal-monuments-injustices/)January 29, 2017In "Department of the Interior"
Phil Lyman: A Government of Bullies (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/15/phil-lyman-a-government-of-bullies/)

January 15, 2017 In "Extreme Greens"


Share
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/05/letter-to-zinke-bears-ears-is-a-special-interest-scheme-not-the-will-of-the-people/)
Tweet
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Letter%20to%20Zinke%3A%20Bears%20Ears%2 0is%20a%20special%20interest%20%27scheme%2C%27%20n ot%20the%20will%20of%20the%20people&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreerangereport.com%2Findex.php%2 F2017%2F02%2F05%2Fletter-to-zinke-bears-ears-is-a-special-interest-scheme-not-the-will-of-the-people%2F&)
Share
(https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/05/letter-to-zinke-bears-ears-is-a-special-interest-scheme-not-the-will-of-the-people/)
Share

Share
(http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&title=Letter%20to%20Zinke%3A%20Bears%20Ears%20is%2 0a%20special%20interest%20%27scheme%2C%27%20not%20 the%20will%20of%20the%20people&url=http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/05/letter-to-zinke-bears-ears-is-a-special-interest-scheme-not-the-will-of-the-people/&summary=As+the+details+emerge+of+the+new+Monument% 2C+it+is+clear+that+scheming+special+interest+grou ps+have+be...)

[monty]

People are downright disgusting.
Jeanette Finicum called 'trash' at GGold Butte BLM public meeteing in Mesquite, Nevada

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2017/02/jeanette-finicum-called-trash-at-blm-gold-butte-meeting-mesquite-nv-she-calls-out-entire-room-3475906.html


Jeanette Finicum Called “Trash!” at BLM Gold Butte Meeting – Mesquite, NV – She Calls Out Entire Room!

Thursday, February 9, 2017 23:44
(Before It's News) (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2017/02/jeanette-finicum-called-trash-at-blm-gold-butte-meeting-mesquite-nv-she-calls-out-entire-room-3475906.html)
Lorie Kramer


BLM Gold Butte National Monument Public Information Forum Mesquite, NV 2/9/17


http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/159874/images/jeaneet2917c.jpg


This is Skipper’s live stream from the BLM Gold Butte National Monument Public Information Forum held in Mesquite, NV on Thursday, February 9, 2017. Scheduled to run from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at Mesquite City Hall the BLM made presentations and took questions regarding this land grab in Nevada.


There are definite periods when reception got really bad and the sound quality is the pits. John Lamb was also recording the meeting and when that becomes available it will be uploaded to this channel. Hopefully it will be better since I don’t think he was relying on a phone connection.


The representatives of the BLM dodged a lot of questions presented by supporters of the ranchers and others on trial for Bunkerville in Las Vegas. Supporters of the BLM had questions about the implementaion of the “proclamation” and often ridiculed Bundy supporters in the room. At one point Brand Thronton, present at both Bunkerville and Malheur, and witness at the 1st trial in Portland, OR, was shouted at by someone who said, “You ought to be in jail.” The same type of reaction was given to Shawna Cox, who was in the truck with LaVoy Finicum when he was murdered. Shawna was found NOT GUILTY in the first Portland trial of US vs Bundy et all.


The meeting was intense at times with both sides speaking out of turn which resulted in Jeanette Finicum, widow of the slain LaVoy Finicum, walking out due to frustration at the behavior of both sides. On her way out of the room, someone there called her “Trash.” Let’s just say that was the straw that broke Mrs. Finicum’s back. She came back into the room, got a microphone, then proceeded to chastize the rude individual and the entire room for their behavior. I have transcribed her statements below the video.


http://youtu.be/rO-kwSCc50M



“I don’t have a question, I have a comment as well. I’ve been sitting in this audience listening to us go back and forth, I don’t really have a question in reference to any of this. I didn’t like when the side I was sitting over there was talking out of turn. I thought it was disrespectful. I thought it was disrespectful when I saw people doing it from this side. And then walking over and getting in the faces of the people over there. I think both sides have behaved badly, to some degree. And then when I didn’t like what the side was doing over there, which I am a part of…I get up to leave peacefully…because I don’t want to behave like that. I don’t want to sit over there when the people are talking out of turn and being disrespectful to the person asking the question. Or, to the person who is answering the question. “

Then, Jeanette Finicum turns and faces the man who called her “Trash.” who was standing a few feet away. He stood up and started to walk towards her. Jeanette Finicum continued…

“But how dare you call me a name as I’m walking out? How dare you insult me? And I must come back and say that. Calling somebody ‘trash’? And then, telling me that I’m trash…’You too, sister’? Because I have the politeness to walk out when my side was being rude? This is not OK! Not OK! And my family has paid the ultimate price! And I won’t take it from any of you in this room. Until you can stand like my husband did bravely then, come talk to me.”

Jeanette turns to the man who called her “Trash.”


http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/159874/images/jeaneet2917b.jpg


“And how dare you speak to anybody in this room like that! We all can get out of sorts, but we can still be civil!

Jeanette then left the room in tears. One can hear the man trying to approach Mrs. Finicum but was asked to go away. Then, back inside, as they were trying to end the meeting, a woman sitting in the front asked to speak. She said…


http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/159874/images/lady2917.jpg


“I’m so glad that Jeanette said something. I work with children…all day long. And I had to sit here and almost contain myself to say, ‘Stop it!’ Quit acting like 2 yr olds! I don’t like that BLM has come in and is taking this land. I have been here for over 25 years. It’s how it’s done. But we have to work together. As far as the lady who mentioned something about feeling safe when the BLM was here… I stood and watched the sniper rifle pointing at me while I’m watching children on a playground in Bunkerville. I don’t feel safe with BLM but they’re not law enforcement! That’s not their job. I definitely think that I would add that the committee would definitely take these Bunkerville people, and let them be on your committee . Don’t fence them out. They live out there! Some of these people, yeah, they may rub you the wrong way…but to be rude and to tell people they are liars and stupid? Oh my goodness, if you were at my school you would be standing on the wall for your lunch time! Thank you.”


The exchange can be seen starting at 34:00 in Part 2 of the meeting, complete videos below.


http://youtu.be/86ZiuBY5rKE



http://youtu.be/mpkiW2WcZmY

Stay tuned for continuing updates on what’s happening in Nevada and Oregon related to the Patriot Political Prisoners.


See Skipper’s streams here https://www.facebook.com/jdspeece?hc_location=ufi

See Kelli Stewarts’s streams here https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011813922844

See John Lamb’s streams here https://www.facebook.com/john.lamb.16121

FREE THE PATRIOT POLITICAL PRISONERS!
God Bless America!
http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/159874/images/BLM-logo.gif

[monty]

Shari Dovale - Oregon Redoubt BLM meeting gets ugly on both sides

https://m.facebook.com/RedoubtNews/?refid=18&_ft_=qid.6385583864080947289%3Amf_story_key.177592 3369401105%3Atop_level_post_id.1775923369401105%3A tl_objid.1775923369401105&__tn__=C

BLM Meeting in Mesquite Gets Ugly on Both Sides


THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE CHANCE OF A CIVIL DISCUSSION ON ANY TOPIC ANYMORE.

February 10, 2017 (http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/) BLM (http://redoubtnews.com/category/blm/), Constitution (http://redoubtnews.com/category/constitution/), Featured (http://redoubtnews.com/category/featured/), Nevada (http://redoubtnews.com/category/nevada/), News (http://redoubtnews.com/category/news/)

http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/256033/167363/209211/image.jpg (http://www.avantlink.com/click.php?tt=ml&ti=256033&pw=209211)

https://i1.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/jeanette.jpeg?zoom=2&resize=641%2C360

BLM Meeting in Mesquite Gets Ugly on Both Sides


by Shari Dovale (http://redoubtnews.com/?s=Shari+Dovale)

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) hosted a meeting in Mesquite, Nevada last night that drew hundreds of people with varying opinions.
The meeting was designed to discuss Gold Butte, which became a national monument by an Obama executive order last last year.

It was disheartening to hear that they could not have a civil discussion without outbursts and insults from people on both sides of the issue. At one point Jeanette Finicum (http://redoubtnews.com/2017/01/29/meeting-never-happened-john-day/), widow of rancher LaVoy Finicum, took to the microphone to chastise the people in the room.

“ I didn’t like when the side I was sitting over there was talking out of turn. I thought it was disrespectful. I thought it was disrespectful when I saw people doing it from this side. And then walking over and getting in the faces of the people over there. I think both sides have behaved badly, to some degree.” she told the crowd.
Jeanette had attempted to walk out of the room when she got too discouraged at both groups. However, before she could leave, someone apparently could not hold back their ugliness and referred to this lady as “Trash”.

“But how dare you call me a name as I’m walking out? How dare you insult me? And I must come back and say that. Calling somebody ‘trash’? And then, telling me that I’m trash…’You too, sister’? Because I have the politeness to walk out when my side was being rude? This is not OK!”


http://youtu.be/rO-kwSCc50M

The Federal government has spent the past 8 years dividing this country. It has permeated every aspect of our lives. It does not matter if you are a Socialist (http://redoubtnews.com/2016/11/18/liberal-agenda-election-riots/) or a Constitutionalist (http://redoubtnews.com/2017/02/03/updates-political-prisoners-nevada-oregon/), or somewhere in between, you will hear people spouting hate towards you. There seems to be little chance of a civil discussion on any topic anymore.
This attitude cannot stand. We must respect everyone’s views, else we throw our own credibility out the window. The Federal government wants this division because they know that is the way they will win the battle. Don’t fall for it. Don’t get pulled into the division. It is not always easy to do the right thing, but it is essential.

We are fortunate there are a few accounts of the meeting, with video.

Sources include:
Skipper Speece live stream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86ZiuBY5rKE)

Before It’s News (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2017/02/jeanette-finicum-called-trash-at-blm-gold-butte-meeting-mesquite-nv-she-calls-out-entire-room-3475906.html)

LV Review Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/local/nevada/anger-suspicion-boil-over-mesquite-meeting-gold-butte-national-monument)

[monty]

BLM has a meeting on Gold Butte, guess who shows up!



http://youtu.be/_TkCMpwJIRg

https://youtu.be/_TkCMpwJIRg

[monty]

Two Oregon lumber companies sue federal government over Obama's abuse of Antiquities Act

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/
The Free Range Report (http://freerangereport.com/)
Preserving Our Western Outdoor Heritage


Home (http://freerangereport.com/)
About (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/about/)
Contact Us (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/contact-us/)
Topics (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/topics/)
Hammond Clemency Petition (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/sign-the-petition-to-request-clemency-for-the-bundys/)


https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cascadesiskiyou.jpg?zoom=2&resize=601%2C150

Obama Antiquities Act abuses challenged by Oregon lumber companies

February 21, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) Leave a comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/#respond)


“The monument expansion is already having an immediate impact,” said Murphy Co. President John Murphy. “The Griffen Moon Timber Sale within the expansion area that was scheduled to be sold this summer has now been withdrawn without any replacement timber sale. The sale would have generated in excess of $500,000 for Jackson County.”


Vickie Aldous Mail Tribune

Herald & News (http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/local_news/two-lumber-companies-sue-over-monument-expansion/article_a21e1c44-4f8d-5dcc-8e8e-f924787f0cf1.html)

Two lumber companies sue over monument expansion
Two lumber companies filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the legality of President Barack Obama’s expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument during his last days in office.

Murphy Co. and a related company, Murphy Timber Investments LLC, filed the complaint in federal court in Medford against President Donald Trump, acting U.S. Secretary of the Interior Kevin Haugard, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. The new administration could choose not to defend the lawsuit.

“The monument expansion is already having an immediate impact,” said Murphy Co. President John Murphy. “The Griffen Moon Timber Sale within the expansion area that was scheduled to be sold this summer has now been withdrawn without any replacement timber sale. The sale would have generated in excess of $500,000 for Jackson County.”

The lawsuit says the timber sale involved thinning operations and would have generated 4 million board feet.

Murphy said more than 80 percent of the federal land included in the expansion area is dedicated to timber production through the O&C Lands Act.
The 1937 act requires forests to be managed for sustained yield to ensure a permanent timber supply, watershed protection, recreation and economic stability for local communities and industries, according to the BLM.

The act also requires the federal government to share logging revenues with counties.

In January, Obama used the federal Antiquities Act to add 47,624 acres of public land — 42,349 acres in Oregon and 5,275 acres in California — to the 66,000-acre monument east of Ashland.

“Permanent removal of over 40,000 acres of O&C Lands from the timberland base managed by BLM will harm Murphy Company by reducing the supply of timber sold annually by BLM, which jeopardizes plaintiff’s log supply and the jobs of over 400 employees at its four Oregon manufacturing plants,” the lawsuit contends.

Murphy Co. has a veneer plant in White City, a softwood plywood plant in Rogue River, a laminated veneer lumber facility in Sutherlin and a hardwood plywood plant in Eugene.

Murphy Timber Investments argues the monument expansion will reduce the value of 2,101 acres of timberland it owns within the boundary, plus another 1,869 acres adjacent to the boundary.

The area has a checkerboard of private and public ownership, with monument regulations applying to the public land inside the boundary.
Murphy Timber Investments says it will lose the access it needs to efficiently manage its timberland because the BLM will decommission or abandon roads.

The company also alleges reduced thinning operations on public land in the monument will increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire spreading to privately owned land.

The companies are asking the federal court to vacate the presidential proclamation expanding the monument when it comes to the O&C lands. They want the government to manage that land for sustained yield.

As for the legal strategy involved, the lawsuit says expansion under the 1906 Antiquities Act clashes with the 1937 O&C Act’s requirements for sustained timber yield on designated federal land.

The lawsuit also draws on a 1940 legal opinion given to President Franklin Roosevelt when he was considering an Oregon Caves National Monument expansion. The opinion said he could not include O&C lands, since Congress clearly set those aside for sustained timber yield with revenue sharing.
Roosevelt followed the legal advice and didn’t expand that monument, according to Murphy Co.

In 2014, Obama expanded the protected area of the 480-acre Oregon Caves National Monument with the addition of a 4,070-acre preserve. The 4,070 acres had been managed by the U.S. Forest Service and was transferred to the National Park Service.

Local opinion about the expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is divided, with the Jackson County Board of Commissioners critical of the expansion and the Ashland and Talent city councils in favor.

Supporters believe the expansion further protects the area’s rich biological diversity and water resources, while opponents fear cutbacks on logging, cattle grazing and road access.


https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cascadesiskiyou.jpg?resize=800%2C533Wikimedia Commons photo


Free Range Report

Related

With timber communities at risk, Oregon counties fight Cascade-Siskiyou expansion (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/17/with-timber-communities-at-risk-oregon-counties-fight-cascade-siskiyou-expansion-to/)February 17, 2017In "Land Disputes"
Radical environmentalism gets a new name thanks, to Obama Antiquities Act Abuse (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2016/10/19/radical-environmentalism-gets-new-name-thanks-obama-antiquities-act-abuse/)October 19, 2016In "Government Run Amok"
Oregon Land Grab: Ranchers oppose Obama 48K acre expansion of Cascade-Siskiyou Monument (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/01/13/oregon-land-grab-ranchers-oppose-obama-48k-acre-expansion-of-cascade-siskiyou-monument/)January 13, 2017In "Federal Overreach"


Share
(https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/)
Tweet
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Obama%20Antiquities%20Act%20abuses%20ch allenged%20by%20Oregon%20lumber%20companies&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreerangereport.com%2Findex.php%2 F2017%2F02%2F21%2Fobama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies%2F&)
Share
(https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/)
Share

Share
(http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&title=Obama%20Antiquities%20Act%20abuses%20challen ged%20by%20Oregon%20lumber%20companies&url=http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/21/obama-antiquities-act-abuses-challenged-by-oregon-lumber-companies/&summary=%E2%80%9CThe+monument+expansion+is+already +having+an+immediate+impact%2C%E2%80%9D+said+Murph y+Co.+President+John+M...)
Federal Overreach (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/category/federal-overreach/), Uncategorized (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/category/uncategorized/) California (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/california/), Cascade-Siskiyou Monument (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/cascade-siskiyou-monument/), land_grabs (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/land_grabs/), O&C Act (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/oc-act/), Oregon (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/oregon/), thinning (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/thinning/), timber (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/tag/timber/)

[monty]

Utah Rancher Loses Water, Forage Rights To Bear's Ears N'tl. Monument (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/23/lifelong-rancher-looses-water-grazing-private-land-to-bears-ears-designation/)

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Woodenshoecanyon.jpg?zoom=2&resize=601%2C143Lifelong rancher loses water, grazing rights, private land to Bears Ears designation

February 23, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/23/lifelong-rancher-looses-water-grazing-private-land-to-bears-ears-designation/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) Leave a comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/02/23/lifelong-rancher-looses-water-grazing-private-land-to-bears-ears-designation/#respond)


The federal government should not have this kind of authority over a state and local people. Especially when the federal government employees are so influenced and guided by well-funded special interest environmental groups.
Open letter by Sandy L. Johnson

Stewards of San Juan County, Utah (https://stewardsofsanjuan.org/2017/02/22/lifetime-residents-letter-to-senator-mike-lee/)

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SandyJohnson.jpg?resize=648%2C365

Dear Senator Lee,

I appreciate the time and help you have given to San Juan County residents and the State of Utah in opposing the Bears Ears National Monument. It is my hope that Pres. Trump will repeal the designation because, as you know, existing laws already deal with every issue being advanced by folks pushing for the monument.

If repeal of the monument is not the action taken by the president, then downsizing the monument considerably is vital. I am a lifetime resident of this county, and my ranch, my home, my water rights, my grazing allotment, my private land are swallowed up in this thing. I am familiar with the land within the monument. Here is a list of things I think should be considered:


The Glen Canyon Recreation Area borders the monument on the west. This area includes hundreds of thousands of acres in San Juan County.
Woodenshoe Canyon was withdrawn from multiple use by a Forest Service bureaucrat some years ago, saying that it was no longer “suitable for grazing”, even though it was grazed for over 100 years along with similar adjacent land. It is now only accessible to hikers. This canyon lies within the monument, and is thousands of acres. There are hundreds of thousands of acres like this already withdrawn from multiple use or in restricted use, such as Dark Canyon primitive area and Kane Gulch/Grand Gulch areas, all within this new monument. Natural Bridges National Monument was enlarged beyond its original size and lies within this new monument. There are already hundreds of thousands of acres of land set aside. There is no need for this monument of 1.35 million acres.
The original Bears Ears proposal was 1.9 million acres. One of the areas withdrawn from the original proposal was Red Canyon, probably because of all of the mining activity that has gone on there. If you just go over the north rim of Red Canyon into the White Canyon area, you are in the monument. Yet, there is the same impact of mining up and down the White Canyon corridor of Highway 95 from the Woodenshoe Buttes to the Colorado River. There are mines and ore deposits all over this area. South Cottonwood Canyon just west of Blanding is the same.
Highway 95 runs through the monument. The Dineros Mine is in Red Canyon, but the access road to and from the mine to haul ore goes north to Highway 95. Is ore going to be allowed to be hauled on the highway through the monument? Even if it would be practical to build a road from the mine down into and across Red Canyon and back up the many miles to the Halls Crossing highway, there you are, right back in the monument!
There are telephone towers with access roads on Pushout, Cedar Mesa, and the Moss Backs with repeaters to service the federal government outposts in places like Hite and Natural Bridges. Other government agencies and the school district also have repeaters in these areas. These certainly should not be in a monument.
There are 3 full-time homes, 2 seasonal homes, over 1,000 acres of private land, and private water rights just in the Woodenshoe/White Canyon area alone.
Gathering herbs and wood and visiting sacred sites in the Bears Ears area has always been permitted. No one has been prevented from doing these activities. This may not be the case with monument status attracting crowds of people in the future and creating a need to restrict these traditional activities as well as others.
There are no archeological ruins on the Bears Ears. Most of the archeological ruins in this entire monument lie on Cedar Mesa. Back in 1991, Mark Maryboy was a San Juan County
Commissioner at the time. He worked with Utah Congressman Bill Orton then in proposing Cedar Mesa as a National Conservation Area in order to preserve and protect archeological sites, other sacred sites, and to gather medicinal herbs and plants. No mention of the Bears Ears was made by Mr. Maryboy or anyone else at that time. However, over the 25 years or so, Mr. Maryboy has been associating with environmental groups who, for many years, have been pushing for over a million acres of wilderness in this county, much of which is now in this monument. As a paid “consultant” to these groups, Mr. Maryboy’s relationship has been beneficial to them both.
These “gatherings” that were held near the Bears Ears the past two summers were nothing more than orchestrated media propaganda and photo opportunities. Remember, I live out in this area. There have been no gatherings like this before these and none since. This is not a traditional event for American Indians or anyone else. In fact, quite a few of the folks got lost trying to get to the gatherings. They didn’t know how to get to the Bears Ears, let alone to where the gathering was being held. I was stopped many times by these lost folks and gave them directions. I won’t even mention the damage they did to the area where they gathered. But, if my cows did that kind of damage, I would be fined or have my permit canceled.
The federal government should not have this kind of authority over a state and local people. Especially when the federal government employees are so influenced and guided by well-funded special interest environmental groups.

Again, thank you for your help with this federal land issue and for your work in the senate. I hope that you can get this monument rescinded or downsized and that my comments on specific areas within the monument are helpful.

Sincerely,
Sandy L. Johnson

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Woodenshoecanyon.jpg?resize=860%2C485

Free Range Report

[palani]

"obomba 'protects' two MASSIVE areas of western US"

The western US stops at the Virginia border.

[monty]

Ryan Zinke seems to share many of the beliefs of Kierán Suckling and his zionist Agenda 21 masters in NYC/DC. The more I read about his plans the more obvious his motives. That is precisely the reason he was chosn for this position. To assist Comrad Elaine Chao in securing America's natural resources to "feed the dragon".


Secretary Ryan Zinke wants to Restore Trust in Interior Dept, but what about the Constitutio (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/secretary-ryan-zinke-wants-restore-trust-interior-dept-constitution/)n?

April 3, 2017

http://thewashingtonstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Food-for-Liberty-TheWashingtonStandard.com-Leaderboard-728x90.jpg (http://foodforliberty.com/?affiliates=17)

Many have praised President Donald Trump’s selection of Montana Congressman and former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the Department of Interior. In a recent interview with Breitbart, Zinke seems to sound very conservative as he puts forth his desire to restore trust to the Interior Department. However, the one thing that is always missing when you get into these interviews and discussions is the limitations of these people by the Constitution.

Charlie Spiering of Breitbart wrote of his interview with Secretary Zinke. According to Spiering, Zinke sees himself as the commander of an operation, and he is that, but is he going to be acting constitutionally? That is the main question.

“This is like assuming a giant command, where my focus up front is the field. My focus is the rangers and the land managers that are on the front line,” he said. “There’s a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction on the front line because they feel like they’re being micromanaged by Washington. They’re feeling like they have a lot of resources pulled back. From a military point of view, it’s the sergeant and the chief on the front line that win wars.”

As he looks forward to changing the face of the Interior Department for the next 100 years, Zinke channeled Teddy Roosevelt (http://amazon.com/s/ref=as_li_bk_tl/?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Teddy%20Roosevelt&tag=freedomoutpos-20&linkId=15c1c5abe67fd8c12ded70a3ee6a0a5b&linkCode=ktl)https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?source=bk&t=freedomoutpos-20&bm-id=default&l=ktl&linkId=15c1c5abe67fd8c12ded70a3ee6a0a5b&_cb=1491242130053, a president who began the illegal land grabbing in the first place by the central government.
“We’re going to reorganize the Department of the Interior for the next 100 years,” he said.

The interview took place following Trump signing a bill that would roll back the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule, which completely rules out any say so of the people to how the BLM operated.

Zinke claims the signing of the bill indicates that Trump will make good on his promises to restore trust in America.
“We’re going to do exactly what the president has promised the American people he would do,” he said. Zinke is tackling the idea of restoring power to local officials and shifting more power out of Washington. He explained that key component of that mission was restoring trust with the citizens of the United States.

“There is a lot of distrust with some of the heavy-handedness of the government; I would say arrogance,” he said.
Indeed, there is a lot of arrogance, especially when a BLM agent claims their authority supersedes the Constitution (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/blm-employee-to-miner-my-authority-supersedes-the-united-states-constitution/), and armed BLM agents and snipers seek to train their weapons on American who are peacefully protesting their lawless actions (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/leaked-video-from-bundy-ranch-siege-demonstrates-blm-tyranny-aggression/).

While Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah made some last minute land grabs out West, Zinke says that Trump is seeking ways to roll those back.

“I don’t think it’s in dispute whether he can modify a monument,” Zinke said, referring to the president. “The dispute is whether or not he can nullify it — still untested and unclear in the law.”

Seriously? The Constitution is clear about land that the central government may own. It’s extremely clear. If Trump is serious about this, then let him write an Executive Order that acknowledges the central government’s usurpation of power in grabbing land illegally. If a court wants to rule against him, then how about President Trump understand who has authority in the matter. It is not the Judicial Branch (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/what-are-the-enumerated-powers-of-the-federal-courts/). Furthermore, I don’t think the Constitution gives authority to Congress to write legislation that allows for land grabbing for parks, wildlife refuges or other ridiculous purposes without the express consent of the state legislature (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/enumerated-powers-of-congress-2/).

In speaking of what took place at Bundy Ranch in 2014 (http://freedomoutpost.com/?s=bundy+ranch), Zinke said, “I would say the war is over with the new president and the administration,” he said. “We want to be the good neighbors.”

He claimed how the central government handled the Dakota Access Pipeline (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/?s=dakota+access+pipeline)protest in February was how they could work well with local sheriffs to “enforce the law.”

“We want to see when we have a law enforcement problem, our first line of defense is the local sheriff,” he said.
Again, the issue is the Constitution. Where did DC get that authority concerning the land?

One thing that was mentioned in the article regarding the interview was this little tidbit:
According to Zinke, local Interior officials should be embedded in the local communities, serving as advocates for the people, rather than just the enforcers on the ground.

“That’s a cultural shift, which I think is absolutely critical to the success of this organization long term,” he said.

Embed central government employees to advocate for the people? Or did he mean condition the people? This is wrong on so many levels.

The people have the right to advocate for themselves, Mr. Zinke. It’s protected under the First Amendment. We don’t need government agents doing that for us. We have elected representatives for that. Didn’t you take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a Navy SEAL? What does the Constitution say about land that DC can control (http://thewashingtonstandard.com/there-is-no-siege-nor-an-overthrow-of-the-government-in-oregon-but-there-is-an-unconstitutional-sheriff-and-patriotic-militia/)? Here, let me help you. It’s pretty simple.

The Constitution is clear about what land the federal government may possess and for what purposes. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States….”


However, that power is limited immensely in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 about federal control of land.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over suchDistrict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added).


If you want to follow an administration, go ahead, but don’t think you are following the Constitution. Make no mistake, the war is not over. DC continues to violate the Constitution at will and no justice is brought upon those that break the law. Until there is justice, the war will continue.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook (http://gold-silver.us/forum/safari-reader://thewashingtonstandard.com/secretary-ryan-zinke-wants-restore-trust-interior-dept-constitution/%3Cb%3EDon't%20forget%20to%20like%20us%20on%20%3Ca %20href=) and follow us on Twitter (https://twitter.com/fpptim).

[monty]

A Wyoming rancher’s daughter and property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen could be next Bureau of Land Management director

From the little I have read about this woman and listening to her speak at the Constitutional Sheriffs meeting in northern California a couple of years ago I believe she is a great choice for heading up the BLM

Potential BLM chief vows to push local input, reduce monuments (http://www.wyofile.com/potential-blm-chief-vows-push-local-input-reduce-monuments/)

Jennifer Yachnin (http://www.wyofile.com/author/jennifer-yachnin/)
By | November 28, 2017
Wyoming-based property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen recently vowed that if she is confirmed to lead the Bureau of Land Management, she will “advocate for local government involvement,” criticizing an inside-the-Beltway mindset that she said currently pervades land-use planning.


Budd-Falen, who confirmed to E&E News last month that she is under consideration to become BLM’s next director, also endorsed the Trump administration’s push to reduce national monuments and questioned whether two Utah monuments were “lawful to designate” (Greenwire (https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060062937), Oct. 6).


]http://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/budd-falen_karen2.jpg (http://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/budd-falen_karen2.jpg)
Karen Budd-Falen. (Budd-Falen Law Offices)

The self-proclaimed “cowboy lawyer” made the remarks during a forum Saturday Nov. 18 in Hamilton, Mont., that was organized by Montana state Rep. Theresa Manzella (R).
The event, which focused on land-use planning in Ravalli County, also featured state Sen. Jennifer Fielder (R), who heads the American Lands Council, which promotes the transfer of federal lands to state ownership.
According to transcripts and audiotape of the event provided to E&E News by the Western Values Project, Budd-Falen addressed a variety of topics over several hours and answered audience questions.


“If I am confirmed, I am going to advocate for local government involvement like I’ve been talking about here,” Budd-Falen said in response to a question about how she would lead BLM if nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate.


A longtime critic of BLM who has challenged the agency over grazing regulations and endangered species protections, Budd-Falen added that she would not tell local governments to “violate the federal law” to achieve their goals.
“But I think we need to consider the local needs as we’re doing federal land policy and management decisions. I think that we need to make decisions that are closer to the ground,” Budd-Falen said.


In another response, when asked about the future of national monument creation, Budd-Falen similarly called for more involvement by city or county officials in federal planning.


http://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BigPineyWY_CityHall-web.jpg (http://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BigPineyWY_CityHall-web.jpg)Karen Budd-Falen grew up on a ranch near Big Piney, which has some 516 residents and calls itself the “Icebox of the nation.” City Hall is one of the landmarks in the western Wyoming outpost in Sublette County at the edge of the Wyoming Range. (Copyright (c) Magicpiano 2017 Permission granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License: GNU Free Documentation License.)



“I think that local governments need to take these opportunities to be more involved. I think that too many decisions are coming out of Washington that aren’t considering people in Ravalli County or Sublette County or Laramie County , or wherever it is you’re from,” she said. “I think there ought to be significantly more involvement.”


During her remarks, Budd-Falen also criticized what she sees as bureaucratic delays within BLM and said she would work to speed decisions on grazing and other issues at the agency.

“It’s my opinion that the wait is what’s the problem. The final decision, you make a final decision on property, and if I don’t like the final decision I can appeal it. … But just make the decision, and then we can go on from there,” said Budd-Falen, who spent three years at Interior during the Reagan administration.
National monuments legal?

Budd-Falen also endorsed legislation authored by House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) that aims to overhaul the Antiquities Act of 1906, the law under which presidents can establish national monuments.


Bishop’s proposed bill, which could see a vote on the House floor early next year, would significantly curb existing presidential authority under the law by enacting limits on the size of new monuments, as well as requiring local and state approval for some sites (Greenwire (https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060065467)[I], Nov. 2).


Budd-Falen said she agrees that the current law “was significantly abused,” echoing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s criticism that many of the existing monuments, including Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments, are too large.
http://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Devils-tower.jpg (http://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Devils-tower.jpg)Devil’s Tower, also known as Bear Lodge, was the first national monument in the U.S. and it is located in Karen Budd-Falen’s home state. The potential head of the BLM said recently national monuments should occupy the smallest footprint possible and that some in Utah were likely created illegally. (National Park Service.)



“If you read the Antiquities Act, it says you are to designate the smallest area possible to protect the artifact you are trying to protect. I looked at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, surely that’s not the smallest area possible to protect these things,” Budd-Falen said. “So, I’m not convinced that those were even lawful to designate.”


During her remarks, Budd-Falen also criticized the Obama administration for what she called a push toward “single-use preferential management.”


“Personally, I am a huge supporter of multiple-use, and I think there is enough land and enough resources that you can have everything you need to have: I think you do oil and gas, I think you can do grazing, I think you can cut timber,” Budd-Falen said. “I think there is absolutely enough room if you, if in your heart what you want is multiple use of the public lands. And I think that’s the direction we need to go.”


Western Values Project Director Chris Saeger criticized Budd-Falen’s view of federal lands, including her description of national parks and wilderness areas as “single-use” properties.
Never miss a story — sign up for our free weekly newsletter (http://www.wyofile.com/newsletter/)

“The fact that Ms. Budd-Falen apparently believes land is public only if a handful of people can profit from it tells you all you need to know about how radical her approach to leading the BLM would be,” Saeger said.


Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2017. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.net (http://www.eenews.net).
Did You Like This Story?

donate now (https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/584/spdf.asp?formid=Donate)Please read WyoFile's commenting policy (http://www.wyofile.com/about/commentingpolicy/)