Jimr wrote:Mav, where in that article does it say California monuments are to be cut in size? The list you provided are the Californina monuments on the review list. It makes no mention and hasn't been disclosed which monuments may be affected, but the original post, I think is misleading at this time and basically states that the list is in fact, a list of monuments to be cut in size. If I missed something in the article, please point it out to me.
Well, it is the la times. Not to be confused with a real newspaper with journalism ethics (an oxymoron?) The entire media, not just the times, is now catastrophising everything. My take: when all is said and done and the dust settles most people will not even notice any difference.
The land in question was all public before the designations and was not 'logged out and mined'. Most have no appreciable timber or mineral values, which is why they were still largely undeveloped and suitable for Monument designation. Designation did not change that. Neither will 'undesignation'.
BTW -- timber sales can still occur in National Monuments, if the sale is designed to preserve or enhance the values that made it a Monument. Historical and preexisting uses may continue in most cases.
In the case of Bears Ears in Utah, the designation was purportedly to protect cultural resources. But cultural and historical resources are protected by the Antiquities Act on ALL public lands, whether Monument or multiple use. To really protect the cultural resources (on any public land) additional funding for law enforcement and engineering measures are needed, else the looting will continue anyway. Additional funding could have been provided without Monument designation, and the designation did not provide for additional funding. So what was the real reason?