Posted on 02/01/2025 8:49:14 AM PST by cuz1961
The federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the monument, finalized a new resource management plan in early January that outlines how the government will take care of the over 100,000 acres of breathtaking landscape. The Cascade Siskiyou National Monument covers a large, ecologically diverse region on the border of Oregon and California. In order to learn what environmentalists think about this new management plan, JPR’s Roman Battaglia spoke with Dave Willis, the man who originally fought to create the Monument starting in the 1980s and the chair of the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council.
(Excerpt) Read more at ijpr.org ...
Dave Willis: It wasn't a bad plan, and it was done by BLM staff who knew the monument very well, cared about it and gave it their best shot. Wasn't perfect, but I'm sad to say it is better than the plan that BLM just signed. That was written by BLM staff who didn't really know the monument. It wasn't a priority for them. And I'm afraid they were influenced by the BLM traditional custom and culture. You know, the BLM was established by combining the General Land Office, which sold land off and the U.S. Grazing Service, which was controlled by ranchers, and the O&C [Oregon and California] Administration, which had been cutting like there was no tomorrow. And even though that was decades ago, BLM continues to struggle to overcome its beginnings.
RB: What do you think of the new resource management plan that was released by the BLM this month?
DW: Well, it's not for no reason that some clear-eyed critics call BLM the bureau of Beef, Logging and Mining. And in this particular case, I'm afraid that shows up. Some dubious promises are made about studying the effects of cattle, but they haven't done any studies since 2008 that have been worth anything. In fact, they've refused to study using the cover of what's called the grazing rider to renew leases a number of times. The logging is very heavy-handed in this monument plan. If you're a hammer, every problem is a nail. And If you're a chainsaw, every problem is a tree. And for the most part, the BLM is kind of a one trick pony chainsaw, and that shows up in this plan far too much.
RB: So what kind of elements make you say that the 2008 plan is better than the newly-passed one?
DW: The original plan included elements of the Northwest Forest Plan: the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which required that agency actions not retard water quality and stream health, and the Survey and Manage Protocols, which have been called look before you log, at what the logging will do to species in the monument that the proclamation says should be protected. And this new plan ditches the Northwest forest plan elements. No Aquatic Conservation Strategy, no Survey and Management Protocol. The plan also ditches Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas. And that's because they say, "Oh, we're going to manage the whole monument in a way that would protect those." We're dubious that would be the case by so much of what the plan says. In fact, if they manage the whole monument to protect it, we wonder why the plan says they could even trade away monument land inside monument boundaries, so it's no longer be part of the monument. That to us, doesn't sound like managing the whole monument as though it were an Area of Critical Environmental Concern
The monument belongs to and should be managed by the state in which it is located.
GET THE FEDS OUT OF OUR SOVREIGN STATES!!!!
\/ Roman Battaglia Roman Battaglia is a regional reporter for Jefferson Public Radio. After graduating from .........Oregon State University, ............. Roman came to JPR as part of the Charles Snowden Program for Excellence in Journalism in 2019. He then joined .............Delaware Public Media.... . as a Report For America fellow before returning to the JPR newsroom. ///////\/\/ \\\\\\\\\\*state of jefferson seems to have one inside the wire imo.
At first glance it sounds like the BLM eschews the heavy and extremist hand of the environmentalists.
Sounds like a good plan to me!
Constitutionally you are correct. Yet what would you think of how the State of California would manage that land? My experience is that it is worse ecologically.
\/
bout
dangummed
time
blm is a resource management to USE RESOURCES , not outlaw it with econazi endangered libtard rules.
Where is the Constitutional authority for taking land from any state to create a national monument?
He sounds like a fruitcake.
30% OF THE US LAND MASS IS OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WITH NEW MONUMENTS. AND THEY PLAN TO ANNEX EXISTING ONES. MAKES OIL DRILLING, AND MINERAL MINING OFF LIMITS But he must get moving and designate many more national monuments to save 30 percent of the United States by 2030.
https://gailhonadle.substack.com/p/30-of-the-us-land-mass-is-owned-by?utm_source=publication-search
The more recent monuments are in the comments.
‘If you’re a hammer, every problem is a nail. And If you’re a chainsaw, every problem is a tree.’
So says the savior of the planet. Stop breathing. You’re emitting CO2.
The economy of this area is in the toilet. Logging as been killed as has gold mining. Cattle in the woods is a source of food unless you eat only carrots.
Time to check my blood pressure. Or not.
\/
the usfs and blm did the grifter tango for decades starting in the 90’s cuz of infiltrated commies calling themselves wildlife biologists
this is a new sign the commies are finally being expunged and the resource management is being restored to USEING RESOURCES .
a trump effect id bet
A couple of days in the Siskiyous would kill that guy.
In order to learn what environmentalists think about this new management plan, JPR’s Roman Battaglia spoke with Dave Willis
\/
idgaf what he or they think.
roman looks like a vindman .
.
The same place where it says we can establish a Federal Border Patrol.
Clear cut and mine the whole ‘monument’, then allow ranchers to use as cattle grazing land.
Thanks,
BP’s back to normal.
The federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the monument WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
—
I am not sure why you would say. I am not an expert on the subject but you are wrong.
At the time of our nation’s creation the Federal Government did not have any money. Part of the agreement of being allowed to join the union was the states give up land. The Federal government owned almost the known land at the time as well as all land that came under it’s control.
At the end of the American Revolution soldiers were paid with land grants.
In the early days when territories were open up the Federal government were the ones selling the land for homesteads.
Every National park is owned by the Federal government.
Look at a map of Nevada and you will see a large portion of the state is still owned by the Federal government.
This is all off the top of my head and I not interested enough to look it up, but feel free to do your own research and correct me if I am wrong.
Every National park is owned by the Federal government.
so it is more complicated than that.
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.