High Sierra Topix

LA Times:

The list included San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, which forms a backdrop to Los Angeles; Mojave Trails National Monument in the Southern California desert; Giant Sequoia National Monument in the southern Sierra Nevada; Carrizo Plain National Monument on the southwestern edge of the San Joaquin Valley; and Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument in Northern California.

Carrizo Plain NM and Giant Sequoia NM.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-n ... story.html

Welcome to my world. CA has already put up the marine protected areas https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4eMVV22a0A

I now have to drive further to abalone dive, unless I own a house in Sea Ranch. It seems as long as those in charge are making a buck on the left coast, they'll restrict everything.

Take away my fish in the NPS. Take away my ability to dive even with smaller limits. All it seems were allowed to do anymore is stop, pay the parking fee, enjoy the scenery, take a picture and move along. It's not ok.

Unofficial word is the changes are mostly minor tinkering with the perimeter. A few jogs here and there.

More importantly, what will be the changes in allowed management activities?

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.

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?