Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Nothing on Earth prepares you for the Valley of the Gods -- it looks like another planet, an alien landscape etched in ochre. This is not Mars but Utah, the heart of the Bears Ears National Monument, a nature preserve designated just 12 months ago by Barack Obama, in the dying days of his presidency. ... Environmental groups have claimed that the national monument designation is vital to prevent drilling and mining in this pristine land, a claim which infuriates [cattle rancher Bruce] Adams, who is also a local politician representing the county.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Several organisations have joined the Native American tribes in fighting against the decision to scale back the national monuments. And thousands gathered in Salt Lake City this weekend to voice their opposition to any attempt to change the designation of the parks.

Josh Ewing, who is executive director of a local conservation group called Friends of Cedar Mesa, takes us on an aerial tour of the area on a small plane which itself is run by another campaigning organisation, EcoFlight.

Ewing says the president is implementing "the largest decrease in protection lands in American history".

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


imo, this is the result of the Koch Brothers' oil conglomerate wanting more land to explore for oil and minerals, and financing grassroot movements to that effect. They figure that when the land is taken from the Federal government and given to the State governments, then it is easier for them to buy exploitation rights to the land.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-04 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Check out the message that takes up the entirety of Patagonia's home page. www.patagonia.com

"The President Stole Your Land"

"In an illegal move, the president just reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. This is the largest elimination of protected land in American history."

#2 | Posted by cbob at 2017-12-04 09:48 PM | Reply

It's likely just another simple thing donald can do to undo something President Obama did.

Spiteful and vindictive, he can only work with small things. Statesmanship and Diplomacy are beyond him.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-04 09:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

POS.

#4 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-12-04 11:46 PM | Reply

"The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued in federal court in Washington on Monday, asking for a judge to block Trump from shrinking the monuments.

"When we see this kind of folly, we will meet it swiftly with a legal complaint," Sharon Buccino, director of land and wildlife programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

Leaders representing the five tribes that pushed for the creation of the Bears Ears monument and who now manage it, also said they would take the Trump administration to court. They include the Navajo, Hopi, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Mountain and Ute Indians who consider Bears Ears sacred.

"We will be fighting back immediately. All five tribes will be standing together united to defend Bears Ears," said Natalie Landreth, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, which believes the cut would violate the Antiquities Act.

Jonathan Nez, vice president of the Navajo Nation, said the president was ignoring the treaty rights of sovereign Native American nations and that the Interior Department did not listen to tribal leaders who fought to create the monument.

"It's a sad day in Indian country," said Nez"

www.reuters.com

Ah, but it's a happy day in Clive Bundy Land, another alt-right Trumper.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 12:07 AM | Reply

... when the land is taken from the Federal government and given to the State governments ...

But that ain't what happened. The land belongs to the federal government and no executive order can "give" it to a state. It was federal land before the state joined the union, like most western land. That it remains federal land was a condition of the state forming and is written into the state constitution.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-05 01:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Make Grave Robbing Great Again

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-05 06:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

But that ain't what happened. The land belongs to the federal government and no executive order can "give" it to a state. It was federal land before the state joined the union, like most western land. That it remains federal land was a condition of the state forming and is written into the state constitution.

#6 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Meaning even with the reduction the land is still owned by the Feds, it's just open for business now?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-05 10:32 AM | Reply

"In an illegal move, the president just reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. This is the largest elimination of protected land in American history."

#2 | Posted by cbob

Wasn't it a presidential decree that created the monument? It's a bitch when an o'bummer's presidential decree is trumped by another?

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-05 12:29 PM | Reply

Meaning even with the reduction the land is still owned by the Feds, it's just open for business now?

#8 | Posted by jpw

That is what it means. It is usable public land just like it was 8 years ago.

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-05 12:32 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

One motive for creating the national monument was to prevent the desecration and theft of Native Indian artifacts, archeological treasures and grave sites. Another reason is preservation of wilderness for enjoyment by the public, be they back packers,four wheel drivers, cliff climbers or hunters.

60% of the Utah public want these monuments to remain protected and 99% of the Navajos.

Calling Trump a populist is a tragic farce. This reversal of Obama's declaration is a giveaway to the 1% for exploitation of coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium.

AS USUAL EVERYTHING TRUMP SAID IS A LIE, regarding his action in this matter. Its all he knows how to do. Gonna backfire bigtime with Mueller.

#11 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-05 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My grandchildren said to pat Trump on the back for allowing the exploitation of protected federal lands. Short term profits on resources which are already abundant is more important that protecting those lands for future generations.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-05 12:33 PM | Reply

"60% of the Utah public want these monuments to remain protected and 99% of the Navajos."

But 80% f the Koch familiy wants their short term profits.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-05 12:34 PM | Reply

#8 | Posted by jpw

Potentially. BLM 'controls' it.

Here's the thing I recall when Obama signed his executive order, an executive order can create and enlarge them but an executive order cannot shrink or nullify them. It takes an act of congress because of the federal lands law from the 1970s. It says only Congress can actually reduce or nullify a national monument

#14 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-12-05 12:48 PM | Reply

Yes! Trump finally does something right!!!

Now it's time to start scaling back some of the overblown wilderness areas across the country. Let's start with the Frank Church River of No Return wilderness.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-05 01:18 PM | Reply

"imo, this is the result of the Koch Brothers' oil conglomerate wanting more land to explore for oil and minerals, and financing grassroot movements to that effect. They figure that when the land is taken from the Federal government and given to the State governments, then it is easier for them to buy exploitation rights to the land."

Or maybe it will just allow those who already had mineral rights access to their own property...there are lots of mines in Idaho that were rendered useless to their owners when the Central Idaho Wilderness Act went into effect in 1980. I remember seeing miners panning for gold along the Salmon River. As a young child, I loved going camping up there...something wee were no longer able to do once it became wilderness.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-05 01:23 PM | Reply

Sell Federal land to pay the debt.

#17 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-05 01:41 PM | Reply

It's a bitch when an o'bummer's presidential decree is trumped by another?

#9 | Posted by Sniper

Yep. And and after Trump goes to prison it's gonna be bitch when the next President undoes everything Humpy Trumpy has tried to do.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-05 01:47 PM | Reply

The only value Republicans respect is cash. If it can't be exploited, what's the point?

#19 | Posted by morris at 2017-12-05 03:20 PM | Reply

Wasn't donnie dealmaker just in the news defending confederate monuments? It was maybe 8 weeks or so ago.

I wonder why he's not defending these particular monuments.....

#20 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-05 05:34 PM | Reply

"As a young child, I loved going camping up there...something wee were no longer able to do once it became wilderness."

You can't camp in the wilderness any more?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 05:50 PM | Reply

"You can't camp in the wilderness any more?"

Technically, you can. But due to travel restrictions it would probably be easier to camp at the north pole or somewhere in the Amazonian interior.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 09:05 AM | Reply

Unspoiled land is a valuable resource in and of itself but the GOP doesn't care about value so much as who benefits most. If it isn't a corporation reaping the benefits they look to correct that. With Keystone we learned that they will take from Americans for the benefit of even a foreign corporation.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 10:39 AM | Reply

"Unspoiled land is a valuable resource in and of itself."

How do you define unspoiled land?

"If it isn't a corporation reaping the benefits they look to correct that."

With public lands, it's the really the locals who benefit from having expanded access. Whether those lands are or are not developed for resource extraction should be left up to the residents of that state. There were lots of mines in Idaho that were left unusable when the Central Idaho Wilderness Act was put into effect...how did that help the people of Idaho?

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:50 AM | Reply

Except that have no claim to the land and, therefore, the resources contained within it.

So they shouldn't have any more say in it than anyone else.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 02:18 PM | Reply

Spoiled land:

www.miningglobal.com

unspoiled land:

www.tetongravity.com

Any more stupid questions?

#26 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-06 04:50 PM | Reply

"Any more stupid questions?"

I don't think you'll ever get it.

Take the strip mine in the picture. Left alone, it 50 years it would be a lake surrounded by trees.

All they've done is move some dirt around. The only sense of spoilage is in your head, driven by a lack of interest in apply any sort of critical thought. If you did apply some logic, you'd have to admit that the most extreme amount of spoilage occurs due to urbanization.

But even towns won't last more that a century unless the conditions are close to perfect. The planet simply swallows them back up. Modern Cities would last longer, but ultimately they would be swallowed up as well.

There are very few wilderness areas in the US (Alaska may be the exception) that weren't inhabited and used by man prior to the creation of the Wilderness Act. It's just one of the reasons why the legislation is so silly.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-06 10:47 PM | Reply

Take the strip mine in the picture. Left alone, it 50 years it would be a lake surrounded by trees.

Is that before or after it's designated a superfund site?

There are very few wilderness areas in the US (Alaska may be the exception) that weren't inhabited and used by man prior to the creation of the Wilderness Act. It's just one of the reasons why the legislation is so silly.

I've never heard anyone claim otherwise.

The issue isn't preserving places that no man has been.

It's preserving places that man has yet to destroy.

Not really that hard of a concept.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-06 11:21 PM | Reply

"There are very few wilderness areas in the US (Alaska may be the exception) that weren't inhabited and used by man prior to the creation of the Wilderness Act."

That's kind of at the heart of the concept,

"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." en.wikipedia.org

This is shaping up to be a rough interglacial period for a hunter-gatherer, nah mean nam sayin?

But hey, just like that strip mine will be all primo in just like 50 short years brah, in like, 15,000 years, a whole new kind of people could be living in, like, a pineapple under the sea!

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 11:32 PM | Reply

Take the strip mine in the picture. Left alone, it 50 years it would be a lake surrounded by trees.
All they've done is move some dirt around.

#27 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-06 10:47 PM | REPLY |

You have no idea how they mine ore. They don't just "move dirt around". They use powerful chemicals in leach fields to extract the ore from the dirt. When they leave the toxins and chemicals remain.

Here's one that was abandoned 70 years ago. Want to go for a swim?

thesouthern.com

#30 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-07 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"You have no idea how they mine ore. They don't just "move dirt around". They use powerful chemicals in leach fields to extract the ore from the dirt. When they leave the toxins and chemicals remain."

I get that you're from San Francisco or Portland or somewhere like that, so I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Virtually every wilderness area in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming contain lots and lots and LOTS of mines. Some were abandoned hundreds of years ago. Some went inactive when the various Wilderness acts were put into place. And I get how you could think that designated wilderness was just that. But in reality, most of the time, it was not.

A lot of people still have private property up in the wilderness areas. They can't drive in anymore. If they need a new refrigerator or stove they need to have it airlifted in. But they still live there.

When the Central Idaho Wilderness Act was put into place, it was pretty controversial. The area was used for mining and lumber, as well as being a very popular recreation area. Prior to the act being passed, a lot of wealthy people from out of state went in and bought property. Once the act went into effect, these people were shielded from the locals by millions of acres of forest. The ultimate gated community.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 12:57 PM | Reply

"Sell Federal land to pay the debt."

Another proud flunkee from math class.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 12:58 PM | Reply

I get that you're from San Francisco or Portland or somewhere like that

I love how you can't even debate the merits of land protection without throwing out this ad hominem --------, as if you're the only person who ever lived near or interacted with wilderness. Just proves to everyone how weak your arguments are when you can't even acknowledge the environmental rape of a pit mine and instead need to start attacking the urban liberal bogeymen in your addled brain.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"I love how you can't even debate the merits of land protection without throwing out this ad hominem --------, as if you're the only person who ever lived near or interacted with wilderness."

Debate?

have you seen any debate in this discussion so far, because I haven't.

What I've seen is a bunch of non-stakeholders telling the stakeholders that they can go ---- themselves because the non-stakeholders know far better how that land should be used.

That's what I've seen here...clothed in the usual -------- progressive narrative.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 01:22 PM | Reply

And this is exactly why I don't trust progressives, even when I agree with them. Because they are A) convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, and B) convinved they are never wrong. Who does that description remind you of?

Hint: He tweets a lot.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 01:23 PM | Reply

non-stakeholders

Like you, the guy who lives in Idaho?

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 01:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Debate?

You claimed in #27 that a strip mine, if left alone for 50 years, would become "a lake surrounded by trees" and that "all theyve done is move some dirt around." You were then shown in #30 to be an imbecile via proof that many strip mines continue to be toxic wastelands well beyond 50 years after abandonment. Your only retort was to accuse your opponent of living in san francisco.

So yeah, i suppose expecting debate is humorous, but not for the reasons you think.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What I've seen is a bunch of non-stakeholders telling the stakeholders that they can go ---- themselves because the non-stakeholders know far better how that land should be used."

Only by your laughably self-serving definition of stake-holder. And, for that matter, isn't it possible that a non-stakeholder COULD know better as to how the land should be used? As Aristotle (quick, google who he is!) says "man is a poor judge in his own case." For someone who bemoans the absence of debate, you are are comfortable subsistuting emotional appeals (on behalf of such loveable characters as mining and logginfbinterwsts, no less) for actual arguments...

#38 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:34 PM | Reply

Logging interests ^^

#39 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:34 PM | Reply

"And this is exactly why I don't trust progressives, even when I agree with them. Because they are A) convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, and B) convinved they are never wrong."

Translation: you are a bitter contrarian who lets his wounded pride override his reason. Got it.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 01:36 PM | Reply

"...this is exactly why I don't trust progressives... Because they are A) convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, and B) convinved[sic] they are never wrong."
#35 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Just like conservatives, but with evidence to support their claims.

#41 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-07 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And this is exactly why I don't trust progressives...Because they are A) convinced that they are smarter than everyone else..." - #35 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 01:23 PM

Actually, science has proven that:

🍅 Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

Liberals think they're more intelligent than conservatives because they are

#42 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anarchists don't believe anyone is more intelligent than another because that establishes some form of hierarchy.

#43 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-07 02:02 PM | Reply

"Like you, the guy who lives in Idaho?"

Yes. Like me.

"Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives"

Great article. The problem is, you're most likely not a liberal. The article defines "Liberal" as "the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others." That doesn't mean the willingness to contribute the private resources of others, but rather your own.

More likely, you're a statist, who may or may not show genuine concern for the welfare of others, but is contribute to that end yourself. Which is why most progressives don't want higher taxes for themselves, they want them for the rich...the rich always being those who make more than they do. And it's not just limited to economics. Many (not all-many) progressives also seek the opportunity to place more rigid regulations of social behaviors as well, such as restricting speech or behavior that offends progressive ideals.

You're more like a neo-Bolshevik trying to convince yourself or others how smart you really are. All i can say is that you don't know what you don't know...and that appears to be a lot in your case.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 05:43 PM | Reply

"That doesn't mean the willingness to contribute the private resources of others, but rather your own "

Actually it means supporting more taxes that go to more social programs. So it's everyone's private wealth.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 05:50 PM | Reply

"Actually it means supporting more taxes that go to more social programs. So it's everyone's private wealth."

Kinda like the Bolsheviks supporting the confiscation of Kulak property as a means of supporting the communist machine? Kinda like that?

Just so long as you don't have to pay more, right?

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-07 07:34 PM | Reply

"Kinda like the Bolsheviks supporting the confiscation of Kulak property as a means of supporting the communist machine?"

I couldn't say, I don't know much about that.
However there's already some red flags:
Taxation is not really the same thing as confiscation of property.
The welfare state is not really the same thing as the "communist machine," nor is "communist machine" really a meaningful term in it's own right. Maybe you were going for "regime?" Doesn't matter. The "machine" liberals want to fund is the welfare state.

"Just so long as you don't have to pay more, right?"

That's completely wrong, the idea is that everyone pays more.
You know, like when Bill Gates and Warren Buffett say their taxes are too low.
They mean themselves, but they also mean other rich people like themselves.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 07:50 PM | Reply

Rich or poor, people are not denied the right to donate to the Bureau of the Public Debt.

If people individually think they should be paying more -they may make a contribution.

Maybe Gates and Buffett should pay 100% of their income when it is over a million. A million should be plenty to live on.
All that excess is better distributed to the masses.

Of course, there needs to be a tax on assets they hold over a million.
It is not enough to tax income. These people are loaded because they haven't had to pay the right amount of tax -they even say so.

So, a tax on assets they hold in excess should be made. We need to catch up, like they said, on their obligations.

#48 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-08 10:25 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort