Read this: http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/editindex.shtml

Preserving nature
preserves heritage

The Arizona Republic
Dec. 19, 1999
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is on solid ground in recommending that President Clinton designate as national monuments two large swaths of uniquely Arizona terrain.

Pity that the state's congressional delegation and Gov. Jane Hull put process ahead of vision in contesting the designations of 71,000 acres between Black Canyon City and Cordes Junction, and 1 million acres north and west of the Grand Canyon.

As they well know, the Antiquities Act of 1906 specifically permits the president to designate lands with historic, cultural and scientific importance as national monuments, and these rugged and scenic lands surely qualify.

They also know that nearly every president since Theodore Roosevelt has used the act to continue this nation's great legacy of conservation.

These are the public's lands, for goodness sake. The way some are carping, among them Gov. Hull and Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, you'd think Babbitt is behind a private land grab that will hurt local tax rolls. Not so. These lands are managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management, and monument status, if granted, would give a higher measure of protection from commercial and recreational use.

Contrary to the political hyperbole on radio airwaves and elsewhere, hiking, hunting, fishing and camping, among recreational uses, would remain unchanged under Babbitt's proposal.

Public hearings have revealed strong sentiment for greater protection. Congress, however, has been slow to act. Far from being an end run around Congress, Babbitt's recommendation not only is legal but clearly proper.

The planned Agua Fria National Monument, about an hour's drive north of Phoenix, is a one-of-a-kind trove of ancient Native American pueblos that cling to the edges of mesa tops. It's a wild but pristine landscape of deep canyons and mesas, hundreds of archaeological sites and distinctive rock art, and an abundance of wildlife.

The growth of metropolitan Phoenix is marching inexorably to the north, and the time to save these lands is now.

The planned Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument really is a continuation of the spectacular vistas of the Grand Canyon. There are grasslands and pine forests and canyons. In Babbitt's words, "It's where the rain and the snow, running off the land, move through the side canyons of the Colorado tributaries and then join the Colorado River."

This proposal would fully protect the Grand Canyon as nature knows it, and create a wild, untamed area that would be a pleasing antidote to the hustle and bustle of the South Rim.

Under national monument designation, mining would not be allowed. Mining and archaeological sites are not compatible, and gorgeous vistas of the incomparable Grand Canyon should not be blighted by mining operations. Timber cutting also likely would be prohibited.

The BLM would be in charge of managing these monuments. Management plans, according to Michael Taylor, the BLM Phoenix field office manager, probably would allow "currently permitted activities." This means that livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, hiking and camping and driving on existing roads likely wouldn't be affected.

Off road vehicle use, on the other hand, is an increasing problem on public lands. Babbitt says that his recommendation is "to manage them in a very proper and restrictive way."

Designation is the important first step. It'll be up to Congress to find the money to manage and protect these lands as they should be. It's worth remembering that public land usage just keeps rising. Our parks are being loved to death. But maintaining the system to meet demand hasn't been something Congress can point to with pride. That'll be another challenge, a big one.

The Antiquities Act has been a bipartisan tradition of presidents, and some of the nation's most prized parks are the result -- from Zion and Death Valley to Grand Canyon. They did not come without their critics at the time. It would be hard to find one today.

We value our federal forests, rangelands and parks for what they are -- natural enclaves that preserve our heritage. This nation is the richer.

In Arizona and elsewhere, Babbitt has taken a courageous step to continue the tradition. It's up to President Clinton to finish the task.

"It'll be up to Congress to find the money to manage and protect these lands"

Maybe some of you will write your Congress/person and asked them to send a clear message to Babbitt and Klintoon, and tell them "Congress will NOT fund these Land Grabs"

DaveAZ

 

Dave I don't think you did a very good job of trying to persuade people of the correctness of your view about the monuments. You posted a copy of an article that was well written and points out why these National Monuments should be created. The article shows the truth: that the past Congress has been unwilling to protect anything, and that it is pretty small-minded to whine about political process considering what is at stake. For those of you who oppose the Antiquities Act, I must point out that through it's use by various Presidents, we have gotten protection for, among other things, the Grand Canyon, Olympic, Zion, and Denali (today all of these have been upgraded to National Parks). When Theodore Roosevelt created Grand Canyon National Monument, it was in danger from mining. Had he not preserved it, we wouldn't have it like we do today. If we let political squabbles stop conservation, everybody will regret it 100 years from now, just as we would have mourned the loss of the Grand Canyon had it not been preserved.
Plus, none of these are "land grabs" -- all of it is already Federal land! The only thing that will change will be having the Park Service in charge instead of the BLM. (I would hate to live in a state where the governor would fight AGAINST protection for places like those mentioned!)
To get back to the point, Dave, your comment at the end about money just seemed to highlight your side's small-mindedness. As the article points out, you're putting petty arguments in front of your nations "natural and national heritage."

 

Re: CHECK THIS OUT - Nobody...

Nobody,

Logging, mining all require permission. No permit... no logging, no mining.
No need to deny access to others.

Designating these "monuments" and then saying "okay, Congress... approve funding"
sounds alot like taking someones credit card, purchasing whatever you please, and
then leaving the card owner to pay the bill, irregardless of the card owner's ability and
willingness to do so. To me, this is not the way to manage.

If nothing is going to change, then why re-designate.
It's already protected and managed.
If anything, manage more effectively.

One of the most important endeavors in life is the development of one's ability to
differentiate between difficult and impossible. To say that multi-purpose use of
our public lands cannot be continued in ways that allow additional improvement
of the areas accessed is insulting to all sides of this debate.

Ted

 

DaveAZ,

This reminds me of the insurance companies that take what ever liberties they please thereby trying
to dictate the direction of claim satisfaction to the insurance companies benefit under the assumption
that the policyholder is either too unintelligent/inexperienced/intimidated/etc. to prevent them.

A "long winded" way of saying --- yes, very scary very wrong.

I wondered if the arrogance being employed by these people is going to, in the end, be their undoing.

Ted

 

The Emperor Bill seizes another million acres

You have to hand one thing to Bill Clinton: He thinks big.

Back in 1996, this president staged a televised press conference at the
south rim of the Grand Canyon to announce he was waving his "executive
order" magic wand and declaring off limits to further commercial
development or productive use -- without the consultation, consent, or
approval of Congress or the Legislature of the state in question -- a huge
hunk of southern Utah now designated the "Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument."

The Grand Canyon is a different national park entirely, of course. It was
apparently just judged a more suitable photogenic backdrop for the network
TV crews than the area actually being set aside by the president for
eternal preservation, much of that land being, well ... stinking desert.

(Did I mention the Utahans had been planning to mine low-sulfur coal from
the land thus ruled off limits for any American hoping to earn a living?
Did I mention the world's (start ital)other(end ital) largest untapped
reserve of such low-sulfur coal belongs to James Riady's Indonesian Lippo
Group, which now faces far less competition? Did I mention the Riadys and
Lippo have been among the largest contributors -- legal or otherwise -- to
President Clinton's election campaigns?)

Anyway, having seen the president blithely bypass a Congress which has
curiously balked at barring American ranchers, miners, lumbermen, and plain
old hunters and fishermen from making any productive use of swatches of
this nation's countryside larger than many a European principality, the
kind of eco-nuts who live in big cities and think they can tell Westerners
how to manage their coyotes and ravens apparently got to thinking: Why stop
there?

So this March, federal Secretary of Land Seizures Bruce Babbitt traveled
to Arizona to attend a public meeting at which the federals discussed a new
proposed sweep of Mr. Clinton's magic wand, this time to rule off limits to
productive use another 300,000 to 600,000 acres on the north rim of the
Grand Canyon -- to be referred to as the Shivwits Plateau National
Monument, or the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, or the Grand
Canyon-Mount Charleston National Monument ... something like that.

Sure enough, President Clinton announced Dec. 14 he plans to do it again
-- but not for a mere piker's 600,000 acres. No, no, the new plan is to set
aside by executive decree another (start ital)million(end ital) acres --
the north rim of the Grand Canyon right up to the Nevada border ... plus
another 8,000 acres near San Francisco if his mapmakers can find the way to
San Jose; 71,000 acres for a new "Agua Fria National Monument" in the
black-rock barrens north of Phoenix, Ariz.; and ... what else, Bruce? ...
heck, throw in a couple of islands off the California coast.

At least, that's it for now. Tomorrow's another day.

Nevada senators Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, contacted for comments,
expressed no major concerns. Sen. Reid said "That's Arizona's problem."
Sen. Bryan only asked that such bold power grabs be dressed up in future
with the proper trappings of "sufficient public input," while acknowledging
the president is probably asserting himself so recklessly because the
Republican-led Congress (now conveniently on holiday recess) has proven
hostile to additional "public land protection."

"Protection" from what? Most of the lands in question are already
administered by the BLM, which has been progressively closing down access
roads and running off the local peasants for some years now. No one was
planning to pave this arid real estate and erect a chain of massive new
Toys 'R Us franchises.

As for the notion that the president is somehow justified to thus act
unilaterally when the Congress drags its feet: This violates nothing less
than the two most important underlying precepts of the very Constitution
which William Jefferson Clinton twice swore a sacred oath to protect and
defend.

The Founding Fathers warned us repeatedly that 1) the way to avoid
tyranny is to allow government not to do any thing it believes a "good
idea," but rather to allow it to do only those things for which it has been
delegated specific powers; and 2) that those powers have been divided among
the three branches of government not in hopes they would "work smoothly
together," but just the opposite -- in the specific hope and expectation
that one branch or another could always be relied upon to properly "drag
its feet" should another branch (the executive being by far the greatest
concern) take it into its head to rule by decree ... you know, like a
dictator.

This failure of Nevada's two weak-hearted senators to rise up here and
jealously guard their legislative prerogative is very discouraging. One
wonders if their keepers still allow them solid food.

At least U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., the only member of the Nevada
delegation who seems to have re-read the Constitution recently, declared:
"These types of decisions should not be made in the secrecy of the White
House."

He said a mouthful.

By Vin Suprynowicz

 

From the North Rim to the Nevada border? Isn't that something like 120 miles????? At least, that's what I remember on the road sign at Hoover dam. Maybe that's just from there, but still - it's an AWFUL long way. BTW, to do italics, you need to just do {i} & {/i} except don't use the cap version of { & }.

TEX

/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif Got Mud?
G.U.M.B.O. Mud Racing

 

first of all, thank god for Grand Staircase! That was one of the best things Clinton ever did.

Ted- my point was that the land will change hands within the Federal Government. I don't know how YOU define a land grab, but in my book this land was "grabbed" by the BLM a long time ago. this is a land transfer. Why does it have to be transfered? Because the BLM has an illicit love affair with the oil and gas, logging, and mining industries, and the ORV lobby. If anybody is going to be trusted with land, the Park Service will do the best job.
And, no it is not like an insurance agency. The reason this is being done by exuctive order is because the majority of the western contingent in Congress simply refuses to protect anything. Indeed, the recent redesignation of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison from a National Monument to a National Park was the first conservation this Congress has done. You would be pissed if TR let Congress throw away the Grand Canyon to mining, and in 100 years, our children's children will be pissed if Clinton let's Congress throw these places away. Oh, and did you hear he was considering more places, like the Owyhee Cnayonlands in Oregon and the Missouri Breaks in Montana? For once he is not being such a half-ass.

Dave, Dave, Dave...

If you have a quarrel with the Antiquities Act, blame that good old patriotic Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. But I don't think you have a quarrel with TR, and I'd hardly think you would say you wish that Grand Canyon National Park was never created. So what are you complaining about? Every president since TR execpt for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush has used it to protect our national treasures.

Oh, and maybe you should check a few facts about GSENM. Historical employment and income patterns in Southern Utah owe much more to the price of oil, uranium, and beef, than to how much land is set aside as wilderness or parks. Rural regions that are heavily dependent on extractive industries have some of the wildest fluctuations in employment and income. Wilderness offers oppurtunities to enhance community stability -- for entreprenuers willing to forego the old reliance on federally sponsered mining and construction booms. In Garfield County alone, outfitting and guiding brought in 3.7 million dollars in 1994 and is a major component of the local economy. This is especially true in the less populated eastern portion of the county which contains a high amount of BLM wildlands. The designation of GSENM or wilderness designation DOES NOT AFFECT grazing.
During the 1980's, the closure of a uranium mine in Blanding, Utah, and production declines in the Aneth oil field in southeastern San Jaun County virtauly collapsed the mining sector of the county. Neither was related in any way to wilderness. International market forces pulled the plug on these industries. Precipitous price declines in both oil and uranium simply made these remote production facilities uneconomic. the answer to utah's economic difficulties is not to promote more reliance on unstable industries by aggresively pursuing mineral production from wilderness lands. An example: Wyoming has long courted extractive industries with tax incentives and lax restirctions. This has hitched the state to wild boom and bust cycles. Currently, Wyoming is experiencing the downside: "hemorrhaging job, business, and people," acording to the Salt Lake Tribune. it goes on to say: "with the state's low crime rate, cheap real estate, the outdoor lifestyle that comes with easy access to the Rockies, things that have helped turn neighborng Idaho, Colorado, and Utah into places trying to cope with all the [growth], the question is, why?" the answer is because they depend on extractive industries, not tourism generated by the state's natural wonders. had the coal mine been made on the Kaiporowits Plateau, it would have meant jobs for a few years, and then bust. And there would never be the wilderness again. By the way, the mine would have been owned by a multi-national corporation. Do you think it would have cared much about the miners if things stopped being profitable? After all, people don't travel places to see mines -- they go to see Nature, and Utah would have lost the income generated by that. So, you still think the Monument is taking the food off the table for thousands of those poor Utahns?

Utahns didn't want the monument? Uh, no. Southern Utahn's still hooked on the empty dream of mining (see above if you missed it) didn't want it, but up in Salt Lake, where most of the population is, people wanted it. In 1995 public meetings about wilderness, 17% were against it and 83% were for it in some way. Judging from that, do you think the majority wanted the Monument? Yes!

And you called it stinking desert. Now, ask anybody: ranchers, miners, loggers, wilderness activists, anybody, and they will not say it is just stinking desert. The people in the town of Escalante hate my guts - I know it cause I've been there, but they won't call it stinking desert and neither would I. Just a question - have you been to Grand Staircase? Have you hiked the slot canyons, climbed the cliffs, seen the arches and the rocks of every color of the rainbow? Ever seen any pictures? At all? Why don't write to the BLM (they manage it) and request a brochure. Then call it stinking desert.

I've been there. I HAVE hiked the slot canyons, climber the cliffs, seen the arches and the rocks. You can say it is better strip-mined or logged, but don't ever say it's just stinking desert. Never.

Sen. Bryan got it right. You labeled him a traitor, and I guess he is one - he's a traitor from a group of people who don't give a damn about anything but money, and whether they get elected next term.

You know, speaking of the Constitution, I will point out the advantages of having a commander in chief who is elected every four years and cannot serve more than twice in a row. First, it means we won't have dictators. And second, it means that at some point, hopefully, the politician who is president, as he nears the end of his time in office, will stop thinking about polls or money or what people think of him or politics as usual, and do what he believes in, and what is right.

God bless America. God bless the monuments.

Green

 

In reply to:

The reason this is being done by exuctive order is because the majority of the western contingent in Congress simply refuses to protect anything. Indeed, the recent redesignation of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison from a National Monument to a National Park was the first conservation this Congress has done. You would be pissed if TR let Congress throw away the Grand Canyon to mining, and in 100 years, our children's children will be pissed if Clinton let's Congress throw these places away. Oh, and did you hear he was considering more places, like the Owyhee Cnayonlands in Oregon and the Missouri Breaks in Montana? For once he is not being such a half-ass.

The majority of the Western Contingent in Congress refuses to protect it because they know that it is NOT what the people in their districts want. Would you want someone to burst in somewhere, that is in your control, be it your house, or your state, and tell you how things are going to be done??? I seriously doubt it. And for our children's children... If we are already using these areas and enjoying these areas, and not harming these areas currently, why not just leave their status alone? It seems that they are locking down these areas, and eventually I will bet you any amount of money, if they continue on the current path, even pedestrians will not be permitted in these areas, even though people aren't hurting the area, either by foot or on ORV...

In reply to:

Utahns didn't want the monument? Uh, no. Southern Utahn's still hooked on the empty dream of mining (see above if you missed it) didn't want it, but up in Salt Lake, where most of the population is, people wanted it. In 1995 public meetings about wilderness, 17% were against it and 83% were for it in some way. Judging from that, do you think the majority wanted the Monument? Yes!

That isn't necessarily the case.. You say that simply because only 17% of the people in the public meetings about the wilderness as you call it (opposed it), and 83% were for it in some way, that only 17% of the public opposed it??? As a general rule, meeting times and schedules are only distributed to some people, the ones that are going to be in favor of the monument/wilderness area, etc... I would bet that if 1) it was illegal for the people not to go to the meetings and speak their mind, and/or 2) if everyone was forced to take part in a ballot, that it would be much, much closer to having those figures the other way around (meaning it would most likely be closer to 17% for and 83% against).

In reply to:

Sen. Bryan got it right. You labeled him a traitor, and I guess he is one - he's a traitor from a group of people who don't give a damn about anything but money, and whether they get elected next term.

You know, speaking of the Constitution, I will point out the advantages of having a commander in chief who is elected every four years and cannot serve more than twice in a row. First, it means we won't have dictators. And second, it means that at some point, hopefully, the politician who is president, as he nears the end of his time in office, will stop thinking about polls or money or what people think of him or politics as usual, and do what he believes in, and what is right.

Considering what most of the people in the area feel, our elected representatives and senators "SHOULD" do what the public wants. I'd bet if every member of the public had to make their opinion known, that the senator did NOT do what the public wanted...

They should think about what the public believes in, not what they believe in. They are there, to represent the public, because the public can't all get out to Washington D.C. to make their opinions known... This particular politician that is President, should not be able to do what he believes with our public lands. How can you trust someone who lies about anything he can, and gets away with it by redefining words as he sees fit, to make suitable decisions about important matters like this? He doesn't care about the environment, I'm almost 100% positive. He cares about the publicity that this type of thing gets him. He wants his name in the history books, and is trying to look good, but if he can't even obey the laws that he SWORE to uphold and protect, I certainly do NOT trust him to make any type of decisions for things that effect me, this includes environmentally. Leave that to the Congress and ultimately the People because this SHOULD BE A Government of the People, by the People, and for the People (politicians always seem to forget about the People and what the People want, as soon as they're secure in office...) not of the Elitists, by the Elitists and for the Elitists... Let the people vote on monuments and other important issues such as this, don't trust these issues to 536 politicians...

Tim
"The_Sandman_454"
/wwwthreads_images/icons/cool.gif '79 Suburban 4x4 454, 6" lift, 35x12.5s & '85 GMC S15 4x4

 

First of all Sandman, how do you get those nifty "in reply to" things? I like them.

Second (and third and fourth): A long time ago, there were a group of men who were deciding what to make of a tough situation. Their situation was this: they had 13 different colonies, all fairly independent, but also united in goals. The decision of whether the 13 colonies were going to become a nation eventually came down to one man - the representative from South Carolina. Now, it so happpened that the people of his state were against becoming one nation along with the other colonies. But, the man disagreed, and wanted one nation from 13 colonies. In the end, he decided that while he was representing people of his colony, they had send him to this congress because of HIS beliefs, and, basically that, to vote the way his conscience dictated was right. The rest is history: we became a nation.
Now, that was a bit of a simplistic example, but the point is valid. We elect people to COngress to represent us, and decide things for us, because we think they have the best views on things, because we think they have the most intergrity, the best conscience, whatever. We send them off to Washington, and they should vote the way their conscience dictates, not how the polls tell them to. When they start watching the polls to determine their views, they stop doing the job that they were intended to do. How can we expect politicians to listen to our every whim, but then not fall victim to special-interest politics? Whether the people want him to or not, Clinton has the right, as mandated by law to protect areas as National Monuments. The reason that he has this power and you and I don't, is because the majority of the country trusted him to run this country as he saw fit when they re-elected him 3 years ago. No matter how many "don't blame me I voted for Dole" bumper stickers you see, the majority of the United States, for whatever reason, trusted Clinton's views enough to give him power as the president, and the majority of the country trusted him because they agreed with his views. now, they may not still agree and regret electing him, but he's in for 4 years and then he's out, and then we stick another person up in charge because the majority of the people think he will do the best job.
If you have a problem with the law, then get it repealed. That's different from getting mad at Clinton because of his legal use of the law. I mean, piss and moan all you want that he did it, but don't say that he had no right to, or that people didn't want it and therefore he SHOULDN'T have.

Which brings me to my next point, Sandman. Now, since you are the stickler for detail and verified fact, please find me the scientific data that you have collected that you use to say that things would have been different for wilderness had everybody participated. I mean, if I refuted a claim by you that 95% of people want ORV access to every inch of public land, by saying, oh that's not true, cause lot's of people really don't like ORVs at all, then you would say: find me some evidence. So, when you show me that in reality 83% of people were against wilderness, then I'll believe you. But, why should I believe that just because you are saying it -- accepting it without any evidence?
Plus, saying that more people don't want wilderness but they didn't show up is like saying "well, the people at the Olympics think they are the best in the world, but if everyone in the world competed, they might not be the best." the fact is, we accept the person who can lift the most weight as the strongest because he did it, and we don't say things like "you never know, there could be 1,000 people out there stronger than him, they just didn't compete."

Final point, respoding to your first point:
Something to remember about the land we are talking about: it is federal. I own the BLM land in Utah as much as he does. He owns the National Mall (downtown DC with all the monuments) near me just as much as I do. If the Western delgations of Congress got a law passed that would do something to the mall that I didn't like, well, that would be my problem because they own the land just as much as I do. In the same way, that BLM land in Utah belongs equally to me and you and every other person in the US. If the majority of the representatives want that land protected, and they pass a Wilderness Bill, well, that's the Utah resident's problem beause it's not his land, it's ours. Same way, if the president, who represents us all, decides to protect land, he's doing so on behalf of the American people, who elected him for his views (go back to first point), that's also the utah resident's problem because the majority of the nation (throught their election of Clinton) wants that BLM land protected.
So you see, if McCain was elected president, and he got rid of Grand Staircase-Escalante, I would be mad as hell and I would write him a mean and angry letter, but I would also accept that since the majority of people support his views, then in a way the majority of people wanted the monument gone. I would just go out and try to change people's minds and try to get them pro-monument so that in the next election, we'd get someone different, who might bring GSENM back.

I hope I have made myself clear, becuase this is complicated. Basically, i will restate the main point: if we elect a president, that means most people agree with his stances. we agree in advance that for the next 4 years, we will accept his position at the head of the government, and he will have a lot of power. we give him this because we ("we" here being the majority) trust him.
so, if he then does somehting we don't like, we can throw up our hands and say "gee I wish I didn't vote for him, I won't the next time" but, the fact is we have given him the power so anything he does with his power as president is with our permission. we give him persmission before the fact, that is all, so people get pissed off when they don't agree with him.

green

 

In reply to:

A long time ago, there were a group of men who were deciding what to make of a tough situation. Their situation was this: they had 13 different colonies, all fairly independent, but also united in goals. The decision of whether the 13 colonies were going to become a nation eventually came down to one man - the representative from South Carolina. Now, it so happpened that the people of his state were against becoming one nation along with the other colonies. But, the man disagreed, and wanted one nation from 13 colonies. In the end, he decided that while he was representing people of his colony, they had send him to this congress because of HIS beliefs, and, basically that, to vote the way his conscience dictated was right. The rest is history: we became a nation.

That "representative" of South Carolina, obviously didn't represent "the People" of South Carolina... He blatantly disregarded what they wished to have, in favor of what he thought... That, to me, is a bad representative because he ignored what the people he was supposed to be representing wanted. They had sent him to Congress because they thought he would represent them. He did not. We do elect people to Congress to "represent" us. That means to do what we want them to. We have a right to talk to our "representatives" to tell them what we want, or have a ballot that we can vote on so that they know what we want. We should have a ballot for every "major" matter that comes before Congress, but we don't. Decisions like that should NOT be made by 535 individuals, or one who acts out of his own feelings and signs Executive Orders, which he has no right or cause to actually sign. That use of Executive Orders isn't given in the Constitution. Foreign affairs, and a minimum of domestic issues are permitted to be conducted by EO, but not something that should be left up to Congress anyway. The job they are intended to do is represent the public, not represent themselves...

In reply to:

Which brings me to my next point, Sandman. Now, since you are the stickler for detail and verified fact, please find me the scientific data that you have collected that you use to say that things would have been different for wilderness had everybody participated. I mean, if I refuted a claim by you that 95% of people want ORV access to every inch of public land, by saying, oh that's not true, cause lot's of people really don't like ORVs at all, then you would say: find me some evidence. So, when you show me that in reality 83% of people were against wilderness, then I'll believe you. But, why should I believe that just because you are saying it -- accepting it without any evidence?
Plus, saying that more people don't want wilderness but they didn't show up is like saying "well, the people at the Olympics think they are the best in the world, but if everyone in the world competed, they might not be the best." the fact is, we accept the person who can lift the most weight as the strongest because he did it, and we don't say things like "you never know, there could be 1,000 people out there stronger than him, they just didn't compete."

You can go to a town near where these "monuments" are. Pretend you're one of the Forest Service employees that are near the top of the chain of command. Be sure to state to people around there that you are. I guarantee, that if it was legal every single member of that town would be out to lynch you as soon as possible.. Or at least refuse to serve you in their restaraunts, or give you lodging... That is proveable. If the climate there is that hostile towards the Forest Service and the other agencies involved in this land grab (proveable if you read a newspaper or anything like that.. I'll forward you the message I got about it if you wish...), I'd say it's unanimous in these areas that they don't like it...

I'm about ready to agree with DaveAZ that we're never going to help you understand the point, and ignore you altogether as well... Oh, and by the way, according to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government is permitted to own approximately 10 square miles of land. Enough for Congress, the President and the Supreme court... I bet somewhere there's an archane law that says otherwise, but until I see it, I will continue to believe that all Federally owned land is unconstitutional. It is a state issue, it is the State's land, and the Federal government should totally back off from ownership of it...

Tim
"The_Sandman_454"
/wwwthreads_images/icons/cool.gif '79 Suburban 4x4 454, 6" lift, 35x12.5s & '85 GMC S15 4x4

 

It's hard to fight the AGENCY!

 

Easy cowboys, no fighting here!