57 replies to this topic

[Smokecreek1]

Hey, let's not nit pick here! No-read I what I said  again. Each NM is different-some get transferred to NPS, but usually who ever managed the Public Land before designation continues to manage the monument! And it is usually better if some one like the BLM, NWS or USFS retains management because they operate on  different mandates and missions than NPS (sometimes NPS however, may be the only way to go).  I agree it can be confusing-look at Alaska- you can have many different management designations all in one general area and next to each other, but that's how politics work. 

 

That nasty word "politics" is why you need to be involved.  A while back I made this comment on a similar type thread- " I don't know how many public meetings I went too that no one except the main user/interest groups (timber/ranching, environmental, etc.,) showed up, and yes their  politics could  become the public interest. We wanted other comments-that's what the management process calls for and we loved it when someone other the the usual suspects showed up-so show up, us old feds were bound by the rules, so show up and be a part of the process so we can keep WTWing out there .  Maybe should have said each "NEW" NM is-----because most of the older NM were managed by the NPS-sorry 'bout that!

 

Smoke

Edited by Smokecreek1, 23 February 2016 - 05:43 PM.

[Advmoto18]

Smoke, I was not trying to "nit pick", sorry if it come across that way. 

 

I simply did not (do not) understand given my "BIL's" various positions at NMs over the decades.  I can't recall visiting a NM that had staff (even a single staff person) that wasn't NPS affililated.  Yet, I will defer to your statement since I do not know NM staffing criteria in the least.

[Smokecreek1]

Advmoto

 

Let me explain it this way and try to do it without telling the history of how and why the public lands are managed.  Starting late century (1800's) the NPS was formed and given  a mandate from congress to manage special areas like National Parks, special areas and later on,  areas designated under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In the late 1960' and 70's, Congress started passing laws to inventory, protect and manage the Public Lands and both authorized and gave the  President the money  to do it. A whole bunch of laws were passed and a bunch of people where hired (including me and a bunch of others)  to implement  the new laws. Up until this time, most public lands (except for those special areas managed by the NPS, FWS(wildlife refuges), USFS ( TR's timbered areas), the military and Bureau of Rec and some other organizations) were up for sale,mining, leasing or grazing or for other special uses.  Congress decided that this left over land-our public lands- was worth something after all and created the BLM from the old grazing service and the government mapping folks to manage it and not dispose of it.

 

Up until this time, there were no laws that allowed organizations like the BLM/others to manage these special areas-including NM's; there are now and over the years all these required inventories identified all sorts of resources that now needed to be managed.  That is how parts of Death Valley were transferred from BLM to NPS to become a park, and lot's of other special areas were identified  but the management was retained by the BLM/FS or other land management organizations and not the NPS when it made management sense.  To be truthful, BLM never got over all its' best lands in Alaska/death Valley being given to the NPS/FWS and demanded a chance to manage some of these special places especially after we spent all the time and resources inventorying and finding them in the first place ! So your BIL was right--- until the laws were changed NPS did most of the special management, now other organizations can and do manage these special places.  That help?

 

Smoke

 

.

Edited by Smokecreek1, 24 February 2016 - 12:25 AM.

[craig333]

DV has been managed acceptably, let only hope (and give our input) the new monuments will fare as well.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

I'm of the opinion Uncle Sam does a pretty good job considering all the forces that are pulling him in opposite directions. Personally, I'm thankful for all they do.

[highz]

I'm of the opinion Uncle Sam does a pretty good job considering all the forces that are pulling him in opposite directions. Personally, I'm thankful for all they do.

 

I'm with you, Sage. And it's worth remembering that the "feds" are not faceless people in DC. They are our friends and neighbors who have to deal with many people with different agendas. It's also worth remembering that many policies on existing public lands are rooted more in the scientific method than in politics.

 

I've been to a few meetings about the Lincoln NF's forest management revision plan and was very disappointed by how few locals showed up to be part of the process. I've discovered that a lot of folks are good at complaining and not so good at contributing.

[Advmoto18]

THANKS for the explanation Smoke!

[Advmoto18]

I'm not writing about the every day managers of our federal lands.  They do a fine job day in, day out with the tools they are provided.

 

I'm addressing the policy, rules, and regulations they are handed  by which they must manage "our" lands by their Department (DoI, DoA) heads in DC.  And the fact that more federal lands have become more restrictive by type of use and user through land classification.

 

If the decades long trend continues, our great grandchildren will be enjoying all these tremendous sites from inside a vehicle restricted to an asphalt road.

Edited by Advmoto18, 24 February 2016 - 01:34 PM.

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Advmoto, I could be wrong, but I believe much of the policy, rules and regulations that you mention, comes from the field. From the experience and science of folks like Smokecreek and others. I certainly don't see this as an 'us' versus 'them', where the 'them' are the folks who are doing their best to manage the lands for all of us.

To some, it undoubtably seems that federal lands have become more restrictive by type of use, but my perspective is we are loving and/or using some lands to death, and restrictions are needed. Whether it's some guy like me walking across micro biotic soils, or riding my mountain bike through an area of endangered plant species, a 4wd laying down a track across an easily disturbed desert, or a rancher with too many animals on the land, we are loving and using our lands to death.

I have no heartburn about not being able to go every where I want, by any means I choose. I want our public lands to be there for my kids, grandkids and others.

[Stalking Light]

+1 on that

 

I'll also add that if the control of the land goes back to the states our grandchildren will drive around an open pit mine to view a fracking operation. IMO, of course. 

Edited by Stalking Light, 24 February 2016 - 04:24 PM.