Bill Clinton was the greatest President of our generation. Creating the Grand
Staircase was just one of his incredible acts that this generations and many
other will benefit from.
Re: "Today, however, competing political philosophies . . . make the
definition of danger a moving target."Yeah -- moving with the
whim of the President. No one could honestly argue that Utah public lands were
in danger when Clinton gifted them to tree huggers. The danger was to Democrat
power and solidarity, not the lands.This evil act unconstitutionally
empowers venal, corrupt politicians to use public lands as political capital to
reward support or punish opposition [both of which occurred in Clinton's
gift of Utah lands to tree huggers].It should certainly be brought
to heel, immediately, as Mr. Bishop's bill would do. Particularly since the
Obama regime has promised other Western lands to its tree hugger operatives.Over time, however, the Antiquities Act must be repealed or declared
One more anti-conservation editorial from the Deseret News. Rob Bishop must be
very happy with you guys.And as for the false argument: "No one
could honestly argue that Utah public lands were in danger when Clinton gifted
them to tree huggers." What about rampaging ORVs, threats of strip mining,
threats of turning pristine land over to developers (and then having to find
water to supply the people who move into the resulting gated communities),
overgrazing, and any of a thousand other destructive practices?Hopefully, there will be enough sensible Congresscritters to put this idea
where it belongs -- in the trash.
These federal lands to not belong to the local inhabitants and policy should not
be determined by their preferences alone. Utah's wild lands are a public
treasure to be preserved for future generations. Looking at Yellowstone's
past history of commercial exploitation gives some idea of what will happen to
Utah's natural beauty if it is not protected. "Fixing" the law
should not mean bowing to those, for example, who want to drive 4-wheelers over
every square inch of Utah.
It's too bad that Bush didn't scale the monument back or repeal it al
together with an executive order of his own. He could have done that you know.
I propose to let the Congress create such national monuments after much
deliberation and input from those most affected.By the way HS Fan,
if you count Clinton as the best president of your generation, you were not
paying attention. Either that or you are about 15 years old and aren't
qualified to make that kind of judgement.
Re: " What about rampaging ORVs, threats of strip mining, threats of . . .
[blah, blah, blah] . . . and any of a thousand other destructive practices?None of which were occurring anywhere near the Escalante/Grand Staircase
during Clinton's regime.His venal, corrupt action -- taken in
the heat of a campaign, mere weeks before his second election day -- was, pure
and simple, to warn/punish Utah voters and buy off disgruntled, radical tree
huggers.The Act, itself, was originally passed to permit emergency
protection of Native American archaeological sites. Its misuse to declare
Jackson Hole a monument led to near-revolt in Congress, resolved only by the
1992 passage of a law similar to Mr. Bishop's bill, protecting
politically-weak Wyoming [but, unfortunately, only Wyoming] from assault by
rapacious White House regimes.The protections afforded Western
public lands by this bill are long, LONG overdue. But the Inter-mountain West
won't be entirely safe from back-East and left-coast "green"
predation until the Antiquities Act is repealed or judicially declared to the
dangerous, unconstitutional power-grab it is.
I'm not tree hugger but I love the outdoors and have biked more than most
people ever will in Southern Utah. I love it.BUT, to allow Bill
Clinton or any President to come into our State and Hijack our resources without
our consent or advise is insane.States should be able to be part of
the process.Anything less is bullying and you know how we all feel
Of course the state and locals should be part of the process, but the process
had been going nowhere for years when Clinton finally did the brave thing. Those
lands would have been destroyed by now. The massive Dutch coal mine proposed for
Kaiparowits would have stripped mountains down and hazed the entire region for
decades to come. Do we really want the last beautiful open land in America to be
pillaged like that? Why don't conservatives want to conserve anything?
To "Hemlock" go back and read the article. The lands belonged to the
Utah School Trust. They did not belong to the federal government, nor did they
"belong to the people."Would you accept it if the government
declared that your house had historic value, and that you were to leave it
without compensation? How would you evaluate proper compensation.
Re: "The massive Dutch coal mine proposed for Kaiparowits would have
stripped mountains down and hazed the entire region for decades to come."Not.That proposal was killed two decades before
Clinton's land grab . The only proposal on the table at the time of
his misuse of the Antiquities Act was for a much smaller, completely underground
mine on an existing lease of only about 10,000 acres.Why do liberals
have so much trouble telling the truth?
@HS FanActually Bill Clinton was the 6th best President of our generation
(out of 9).
It's instructive to remember that the Grand Canyon was vehemently opposed
by the locals when it was designated under the Antiquities Act, under Teddy
Roosevelt. It was seen as a federal takeover that was going to ruin the
livelihood of ranchers who had been using those lands for generations. (Sound
familiar?) Who today thinks the Grand Canyon should be dissolved as a National
Park?A great percentage of the time, the locals will not see the
value in the resource being protected, in the same way everyone else in the
nation does. They're used to seeing the red rocks, the vistas, and they
naturally "discount" them as they assess their own opportunities to
exploit resources in the land. This is human nature, it's understandable.
How many of us visit some other state and then come back and realize just how
beautiful Utah is?How many times have National Monuments later been
turned into National Parks by Congress? A very large percentage of the time.
Arches was originally designated a National Monument by a tyrannical action of a
tyrant President, same with many other parks. Now it's on our license
Clinton Critics:Approval ratings upon leaving office of the last 9
Presidents;Clinton #`1 at 66%Raygun #2 at 63%W. Bush #8 at
34%Nixon #9 at 24%Argument over, Clinton recognized as the greatest
upon leaving office. Grand Staircase played a role as majority of Americans
know Utah political leaders are tied to corporate, extraction industries that
care more about a few fast bucks than protecting a beutiful, finite landscape
for future generations. Bishop's and DN view is solely to appeal to the
right wing fringe people that make up the majority of Utah voters but represent
a small minority of Americans.
procuradorfiscal:I'm not finding any references about the Dutch
coal mine and the Kaiparowits plateau except from 1995, an AP article that shows
legislation proposed by Utah lawmakers supporting Dutch coal which sought
650,000 acres in Kaiparowits.Please cite your information saying
this idea was killed in the 1950s.
Historically there has been a lot of opposition to the use of the Antiquities
Act, like the Grand Canyon example above.Let's see how this
alleged "abuse of power" was employed in Utah:Natural
Bridges, 1908, Teddy RooseveltRainbow Bridge, 1910, TaftDinosaur,
1915, WilsonTimpanogos Cave, 1922, HardingBryce Canyon, 1923,
HardingArches, 1929, HooverZion, 1937, FDREscalante / Grand
Staircase, 1996, ClintonI'm having a hard time seeing the list
of these "federal takeovers" being unreasonable. Actually, they appear
to be quite sage moves within contexts of contention for those resources by
parties who were interested in developing the lands.
Re: "Please cite your information saying this idea was killed in the
1950s."I'm not aware of any information saying this idea
was killed in the 1950s.As I said above, however, the large,
strip-mining proposal died in 1976. The much smaller, underground, 10,000 acre
proposal was the only one pending at the time of Clinton's political land
grab. This is one of many issues covered in a nice, footnoted discussion of
politics and land use history on NAU's CP-LUHNA website.You can
find Wyoming's protective statute at 16 USC 431a.BTW, nice
tactic -- luring someone with a cogent, opposing argument into using his last
post [particularly one without half-a-dozen aliases, like others here] to do
your research for you.But that's OK. I'll take my last
post to reiterate -- giving unfettered discretion to a single political animal
to lock away public lands gives him/her unfettered discretion to punish or
reward political constituencies for purely political reasons.The
Antiquities Act is a very BAD idea, and must be repealed.
When Clinton locked up Kaiparowits, the reason was two fold: 1. To secure the
"tree hugger" vote 2) as a political payoff to Lippo Group,an Indonesian
conglomerate. Prior to the election revelations surfaced almost daily regarding
donations from foreign sources (ie Lippo) to the Democratic Party and Clinton. A
mega coal plant was built in Baja and ready to go online, but they needed coal,
the kind found in Kaiparowits and only found two other places in the world. One
being Colombia, but they were no where ready to mine. and, you guessed it,
Indonesia. The logical source for the Baja plant would have been Kaiparowits,
but Utah wasn't exactly a big doner to Clinton or the Democratic party.
Escalante was locked up and Utah sold down the river so Clinton could get
re-elected. Funny how those singing Clintons praises seem to forget the real
details of what went on back then. Clinton didn't even have the guts to
set foot in Utah and announce that monument.
I have to agree with flashback. Clinton was not the greatest president. At
least not as a person. But Obama is.
procura, when you write: "Re: " What about rampaging ORVs, threats of
strip mining, threats of . . . [blah, blah, blah] . . . and any of a thousand
other destructive practices?None of which were occurring anywhere
near the Escalante/Grand Staircase during Clinton's regime."I have to ask, were you ever there? I was. I witnessed a lot of that. Only
one who is blind to the truth can deny that it did.
Wrong, redshirt. School lands make up only a small percentage of the land.
Republicans lack the vision and courage to change this.
The monument has been nothing but a positive thing. The opponents can't
name one thing wrong with it.
To "one old man" how can I be wrong if you agree that the schools did
own some of the land that Clinton locked up?You are saying that I am
wrong, but am also correct at the same time.
Half truth's are something 5 year old's do, and of course am radio
guys, who routinely apply this tactic.The truth is this "land
grab" applies more appropriately to the attempt of Utah politicians in 1995
and 1996 to force their anti-wilderness bills, H.R. 1745 and S. 884, upon the
American public. Their intransigence only proved to the President that rational
negotiation on land protection issues in southern Utah is not possible."
These lands don't just belong to the greedy people of Utah and it is great
that Clinton set the land aside for everyone. It is ridiculous how people are in
such a hurry to dig it all up. It is selfish. we don't have to use it all
up as fast as we can! It might just be a good thing to leave it alone so future
generations may enjoy also!
@Redshirt1701I think what "One Old Man" is saying is that
your statement regarding the school trust lands that were within the Grand
Staircase/Escalante National Monument (GSENM) boundaries was worded in such a
way to lead people to conclude that either a.) the vast majority of GSENM was
comprised of school trust lands, or b.) the vast majority of total school trust
lands statewide were located within the boundaries of GSENM.Both of
these implied assumptions are patently false. The 176,600 acres of school trust
lands that were within the boundaries of GSENM amounted to about 9% of the 1.88
million acres comprising GSENM, and about 5% of the total school trust lands
statewide. The kicker is that in 1998, the federal government exchanged other
federal lands and mineral rights located in Utah, as well as $50 million, to the
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration for the trust lands
located in GSENM and other National Park System units.A little
honesty and forthrightness regarding complex issues like this goes a long way .
@Red ShirtIn short, the School Trust got a large infusion of funds from
the monument that they would not have gotten otherwise. They had not collected
any revenue from those parcels before the monument's creation because they
were land locked by the surrounding federal lands and would never have been
developed. By designating the monument Clinton solved an issue that had been
ongoing for decades and would have never been resolved. Federal lands
belong to the people and proximity does not heed the land to Utahns. Utahns
argument because they fall within the State we should control their use is
ridiculous. That would be as ludicrous as me taking over my neighbors property
because he is an out of state landlord.