Posted on 05/13/2017 6:30:24 AM PDT by rktman
President Trump has directed Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review recent land withdrawals under the 1906 Antiquities Act, to determine whether some should be reversed or reduced in size.
The review is long overdue. The act was intended to protect areas of historic, prehistoric or scientific value, with areas designated as monuments to be the smallest size compatible with the proper care and management of objects or sites to be protected. The first designation, the 1,347-acre Devils Tower National Monument (NM) respected that intent, as have most designations since then.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
NON print version:
https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2017/05/13/land-energy-and-mineral-lockdowns-n2325573
Thousand of jobs lost in the wood and farming industry.
Wyo.
Seems like only takes minutes to designate but decades to TRY to unravel it.
Timber it, graze it or watch it burn. California has chosen to burn.
Suggest President Trump use the 1906 Antiquities Act to protect The Golden Gate Bridge, shutting it down to all persons. This will protect the bridge and also save life’s of those who attemp to jump off the bridge. Too bad about the economic impact on the area but we must protect historical monuments and save lifes!
>
President Trump has directed Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to review recent land withdrawals under the 1906 Antiquities Act, to determine whether some should be reversed or reduced in size.
>
Well, that’s an easy one. Up to the last 3 or so months of her (or DTJ’s) termination, they will continue ‘biz as usual’ and write a one-page report w/ one sentence:
“Nothing wrong here.”
The Antiquities Act. Another in the long train of abuses vs. Constitution.
They are still trying to take Mr. GG2’s hard rock mining claim in Idaho. Its costing us a fortune to keep it tied up in court til hopefully Trump calls off the EPA and the BLM.
Good luck keeping it going. Sadly, the epa and ecowankers seem to have unlimited funding and time on their hands.
Yes they will not go down easy. Fortunately one of his partners is a litigation attorney or we would have already lost the mine and all the equipment.
Turn the land over to the states, let State government decide what to do with it politically.
That way if California, Oregon, and Washington want to triple themselves let them.
The rest of the western states should be permitted to utilize their own resources to develop just like the eastern states.
Even if they do opt to maintain large scale wilderness preserves there is no reason we can’t continue to extract natural resources from such areas left otherwise undeveloped.
Natural resource extraction is relatively low footprint and its non-permanent in that the lands wild life value is almost unchanged after the mine or well has been retired.
Usually its hardly effected even when the mine or well is in uses.
It is urban development that causes natural habit loss, not resource extraction.
Somehow it’s expensive to manage empty land. States don’t want to pony up the $$$$ when uncle sugar will do it. ;-)
Honestly I think that is just an excuse by liberals and power hungry RINOs.
Empty land should remain wild, and if they feel compelled to lord over it with high paid staff, they can always lease the land out for private uses.
New mexico makes almost 500 million dollars from its 13 million subsurface and 9 million surface acres of state owned land, about ~25 million of that goes to leasing, and administrative costs.
http://www.nmstatelands.org/overview-1.aspx
According to the New York times thou, the cost in land State ownership comes from precisely that leasing , and administrative cost. While claiming states already get large transfers from the federal government in payment in lieu of taxes that they say the state would otherwise get for the same land in private hands.
They might be assuming that states and local Governments would simply not recover this money as they would be unable to sell or lease the land.
This is possible in many areas particular barren desert or mountainous terrain that is of little sustainable use to anyone.
But even if it is true it really only underscores the inequity of federal land ownership to the rest of the country. Paying local governments simply to exist in otherwise largely uninhabited areas.
That said I personalty think its extremely unlikely that so much of the land would be left idle. I think much more of it would be sold or leased off for private usage, and that is probably what the left fears in selling it to states who might not have Washington’s enormous pocket books to keep the land off-limits to economic development.
To that I would simply propose the left start paying the western states & local more for the land. The federal government has the habit of grossly under paying state and local government for land they hored. It would be difficult for the local government to make less allowing a small number of private owners.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html
Love NM but it got soooo far to the left and ABQ got so friggin’ YUGE from back in ‘67 when I left, we decided to not retire there. Well that and state income tax too. Sadly, less the income tax, Nevada is headed down the same lib road. Las Vegas pretty much controls the entire state as far as (s)election outcomes go. Washoe county is getting almost as bad. Now with Apple getting ready to move some sort of data center to Reno, we’ll more than likely make the complete turn. Hell, even our mayor (mare) is named hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.