New National Monument proposals

Jim Hatt

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by Jim Hatt »

javaone wrote:Hey YH, I guess the “FREEDOM OF SPEECH Moderated?” area has been closed… Hmmm, go figure. So I will post this here - Please move this to where ever you want. - MODERATOR :|


Jerry
Jerry my friend,

You have been a wonderful contributor to the Treasure Hunting forum, and I am quite surprised to see you present this attitude in here! I wish I knew what it was about this Environmental forum, that brings out the "Jeckel & Hyde" syndrome in so many people?

That Freedom of Speech Topic was created by someone with the intent of turning it into a free-for-all battle ground. I probably should have just deleted it before it got started, but it would have only been reincarnated in another form if I had, so I opted to deal with it head on and get it over with, once and for all! "Nip-it in the Bud" as PITD so rightly put it.

The battle has been fought, (as the individual demanded), and is over. I can't imagine why you, or anyone else, would want to reignite it in another topic, but I would strongly urge anyone with that intention, to abandon it right away. That topic was locked to put an end to the bitterness, so we could move on to subjects less volatile.

Attempts to reopen a topic (somewhere else) that has been "Locked" by any Forum Moderator are aggressively frowned upon.

Jim Hatt

User avatar
yuccahead
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:39 am
The middle number please (4): 7
Location: SE UT

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by yuccahead »

Brew wrote: OHV use isn't the only restriction that would put in place when an area is made into a national monument.

The land isn't OWNED by the BLM. They only manage it.


Brew
Interesting...perhaps if you had read my original post before you responded you might have been able to add something to the thread.
I mentioned 4 different land uses that might be affected by a NM designation, not just OHVs.
The only post that used the words "land" "OWNED" and "BLM" was yours.
BLM land is federal land, they do not need a states approval to manage it or to change how they manage it. The Utah politicians can whine all they want, ultimately, it makes no difference except to help the Utah republicans get re-elected which would have happened anyway.

User avatar
Plays In The Dirt
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by Plays In The Dirt »

"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior which administers America's public lands, totaling approximately 253 million acres (1,023,855 km2) or one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[1] BLM also manages 700 million acres (2,832,800 km2) of subsurface mineral estate underlying Federal, state and private lands. Most public lands are located in the Western States, including Alaska."

"One of the BLM's goals is to recognize the demands of public land users while addressing the needs of traditional user groups and working within smaller budgets. Perhaps one of the Bureau's greatest challenges is to develop more effective land management practices, while becoming more efficient at the same time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management

Brew
Posts: 344
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:43 am

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by Brew »

yuccahead wrote: The only post that used the words "land" "OWNED" and "BLM" was yours.
Are you sure about that?
yuccahead wrote:it's mostly BLM with a widespread checkerboard of state lands intermingled
Brew

User avatar
yuccahead
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:39 am
The middle number please (4): 7
Location: SE UT

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by yuccahead »

Sorry, I still don't see where it says "BLM owned land", but, apparently you do.

MMM
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:25 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by MMM »

It looks like I am not being heared or maybe just ignored. My main gripe is how this is being done. If you want wilderness, perserves or whatever, go through the law making process and do it in public view, and not behind closed doors as some kind of pay back for favors (votes) cast to further the presdents agenda. Leaked memos or letters is NOT the way our govt should be conducting management of PUBLIC LANDS. To me this is just another example of closed door politics.

The BLM manages public lands, including all national forests and wilderness areas, outside of national parks. All these lands are considered federal lands. The BLM does not own any land, but exercises complete control over all resources, outside of timber, found on them.

Mike

Jim Hatt

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by Jim Hatt »

Hi Mike,

I think you have one thing stated wrong in the previous post. No real biggie in the context of your statement, but the U.S. Forest Service has Jurisdiction over all Wilderness Areas, not the BLM which is a separate entity all together.

Have to agree with you 100% on the issue of "closed door politics". Never before have I been so much in the mood to join the "Re-Elect Nobody" movement.

Jim

User avatar
yuccahead
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:39 am
The middle number please (4): 7
Location: SE UT

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by yuccahead »

MMM wrote:

The BLM manages public lands, including all national forests and wilderness areas, outside of national parks. All these lands are considered federal lands. The BLM does not own any land, but exercises complete control over all resources, outside of timber, found on them.

Mike
Mike, that's simply not true. The US Forest Service manages the National Forests.
US Wilderness Areas can be managed by any one of 4 different agencies - The USFS, the National Park Service, the BLM or the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

Also, none of this is a done deal. I'm just happy to know Mr. Obama is at least thinking along these lines.

Jim Hatt

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by Jim Hatt »

Oh Oh, I didn't mean to start all of that. It's time to start quoting Chapter, Page and Paragraph, so we can all LEARN, and learn exactly what the law says, and not the way we recall it from memory.

That's enough shooting from the hip for me. If we are going to get down to the brass tacks, one of us is going to have to take the time to find the applicable "CFR's" (Code of Federal Regulations) online, and post them here so we can see all the details and sort things out item by item, line by line.

I already posted the entire Wilderness Act in the Treasure Hunting Forum at: http://www.desertusa.com/mb3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=401

Don't ask me for a link to where I found it tho. I downloaded it about 10 years and a half a dozen computers ago.

Jim

Brew
Posts: 344
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:43 am

Re: New National Monument proposals

Post by Brew »

Jim Hatt wrote: That's enough shooting from the hip for me. If we are going to get down to the brass tacks, one of us is going to have to take the time to find the applicable "CFR's" (Code of Federal Regulations) on line, and post them here so we can see all the details and sort things out item by item, line by line.
Jim
To make it easy for folks to get the facts:
The BLM is part of the Department of the Interior and is regulated under 43 CFR 1600-9260
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... v2_08.html

The forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture and is regulated under 36 CFR 200-297
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... v2_09.html

Happy reading

Brew

Post Reply