57 replies to this topic

[ntsqd]

All I ever see these acts doing is restricting access to law abiders and allowing the gov't to charge us for doing anything within the borders. Watch what happens when a mineral deemed strategic and rare is found within those borders. See how much that protection will mean then.

[Advmoto18]

Actually, rules and regulations soon to be implemented (if not already enforced) for these new monuments will be restricting, if not prohibiting, historical "use".  Once NPS gets involved, many long time users of federal land find themselves locked out.

 

Designation as a "monument" is one of the lower forms of classification in a federal land grab for the NPS without input from the state or its residents.  Very little budget is dedicated to a monument along with little to no staffing.  But, a truck load of NPS rules and regulations are now en-forcible.

Edited by Advmoto18, 23 February 2016 - 04:27 PM.

[Stalking Light]

National Monuments are on land already owned by the federal government, not land grabs from states afaik.

[ski3pin]

Wonderful to see three new National Monuments in California!

[Smokecreek1]

NM are not National Parks or National Conservation Areas (NCA's) and([new one's]-I added this for clarification for A18 later comment-sorry and not sure if this edit was legal to do?) are very rarely are managed by the NPS. They are different management processes and NM status is much less restrictive than other management categories. Every NM is different and are created for different reasons on public lands not state lands (frequently states join in with the feds to create larger management areas and operate on different rules) and most "historic"uses are also " grandfathered  in."  Management usually is done by what ever federal agency was in charge before designation and while additional funding is hard to come by in any instant, both future management and funding are determined by the reason the NM was created and the management process.  Each NM usually has both  non-government supporters and user groups  who "are supposed" to work with the feds to develop rules to manage the  monument. 

 

As a retired fed who has been involved with the process for many years THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU AS CITIZENS  NEED TO BE  AWARE OF AND TAKE PART IN.  If you are interested in a certain area/NM/NCA or what ever, show up at the planning meetings, write letters and voice your views and even better take part in the process-the process will not work right without your input. These are Public Lands and as we have said here on this site before many times before  " these are your lands and you need to be involved" and maybe that road will not be closed or that area will remain open-but you need to do your part !

 

Smoke

Edited by Smokecreek1, 23 February 2016 - 07:33 PM.

[Advmoto18]

Thx for bringing that to my intention!

 

I poorly worded what I meant into something entirely different.

 

Sadly with these monument designations, many long time, historic users will now find themselves likely prohibited from using these lands.

 

Often times, these designations of huge acreages have little to do with "historic" or "scientific interests" as stated in the Antiquities Act of 1906 (amended) and have more to do with politics.  For goodness sake, what lands didn't have native Americans camping and grazing their livestock 200 years ago?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in "leave no trace" and "tread lightly" but I do not support the prohibition of historic uses when only a small amount of acreage out of perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of acres has "interest" per the Act.

 

As Smoke said, it's "our land"!  Not the folks in DC.  But, in truth, public hearings and public input have little to do with DC political decisions.  And this crosses political party boundaries.  It seems to be political pay back for interests groups IMO.

Edited by Advmoto18, 23 February 2016 - 04:46 PM.

[billharr]

Thx for bring that to my intention!

National Monuments are on land already owned by the federal government, not land grabs from states afaik.

 

I poorly worded what I meant into something entirely different.

 

Sadly with these monument designations, many long time, historic users will now find themselves likely prohibited from using these lands.

 

Often times, these designations of huge acreages have little to do with "historic" or "scientific interests" as stated in the Antiquities Act of 1906 (amended) and have more to do with politics.  For goodness sake, what lands didn't have native Americans camping and grazing their livestock 200 years ago?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in "leave no trace" and "tread lightly" but I do not support the prohibition of historic uses when only a small amount of acreage out of perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of acres has "interest" per the Act.

 

As Smoke said, it's "our land"!  Not the folks in DC.  But, in truth, public hearings and public input have little to do with DC political decisions.  And this crosses political party boundaries.  It seems to be political pay back for interests groups IMO.

 

 

I agree with all of the above. As Smoke said it is time to be involved if you want to keep using these areas with your campers. Unfortunately groups like the Sierra Club are much more organized than most camping groups. Even if there is enough public input to keep camping open it will be with "pay" campgrounds.  Several years later you will see more regulation of the area as the environmental groups will stay involved. The pay campgrounds will bring in the leave every trace around campers with there LG RV's. The mess will lead to closing of all camping.  Rant over.

[Advmoto18]

Smoke's post...

 

NM are not National Parks or National Conservation Areas (NCA's) and very rarely are managed by the NPS. They are different management processes and NM status is much less restrictive than other management categories. Every NM is different and are created for different reasons on public lands not state lands (frequently states join in with the feds to create larger management areas and operate on different rules) and most "historic"uses are also " grandfathered  in."  Management usually is done by what ever federal agency was in charge before designation and while additional funding is hard to come by in any instant, both future management and funding are determined by the reason the NM was created and the management process.  Each NM usually has both  non-government supporters and user groups  who "are supposed" to work with the feds to develop rules to manage the  monument. 

 

As a retired fed who has been involved with the process for many years THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU AS CITIZENS  NEED TO BE  AWARE OF AND TAKE PART IN.  If you are interested in a certain area/NM/NCA or what ever, show up at the planning meetings, write letters and voice your views and even better take part in the process-the process will not work right without your input. These are Public Lands and as we have said here on this site before many times before  " these are your lands and you need to be involved" and maybe that road will not be closed or that area will remain open-but you need to do your part !

 

For some reason my "quote" feature is messed up.

 

Smoke

Interesting first paragraph.   My brother-in-law (32 years with the NPS, now retired) always sought out NMs to supervise prior to turning his attention to supervisory roles at NPs.

 

Prior to becoming Superintendent of Great Smoky Mountains NP, my borther-in-law, was the supervisory Park Ranger at Florrisant Fossil Bed National Monument, Canyon de Chelly NM, and Fossil Butte NM;   all national monuments managed by the NPS.  If NMs listed under the NPS, but, not supervised by the NPS, who then is tasked with managing NMs?

Edited by Advmoto18, 23 February 2016 - 04:54 PM.

[Stalking Light]

I like National Monuments and volunteered at one for a summer and it was managed by the NPS.

 

The 'open' campgrounds I have seen, particularly in GA, are generally trashy and torn up and end up getting closed because 'casual' users don't take care of them. I'd hate to see dispersed camping disappear, but I also hate finding fire rings full of tin cans and partial burned diapers. Same goes for shot up cars and signs, looting of historical sites, etc.

 

I totally agree people need to get involved in the process but we also need to get involved in self policing the areas we do use and love.

[Advmoto18]

Dispersed camping has all but disappeared in the east.  Mostly because they have become dispersed garbage dumps.

 

There are a few NF in the east with dispersed camping, but,not many.

 

Likewise, rant over....need positive thoughts and ideas

Edited by Advmoto18, 23 February 2016 - 05:04 PM.