Find hikes, GPS routes, photos and triplogs journals. Extensive collection of flora, fauna, geology and culture labels. Archaeologist, biologist, book authors, historians and outfitters galore keep our content true.
https://hikearizona.com/dex2/
Agreed.. bloated. It makes good press to set aside these lands, but the elephant in the room is the a $19 billion backlog of deferred maintenance on these lands.rcorfman wrote:Which in and of itself signifies that those four monuments are probably bloated and should be reviewed.flagscott wrote:But the area of the 4 monuments being targed is well over 2/3 of the total area of all National Monuments in Arizona (4 monuments = a bit over 2 million acres; remaining 14 = well under 1 million--if someone wants to add up all those areas, go for it).
https://www.law360.com/articles/864817/ ... act-legacyAstute readers might wonder how areas such as the Grand Canyon meet the definition of “the smallest area compatible” in the act. The key is that in many cases, “scientific interest” can justify protection of an area such as the canyon. That interpretation was upheld in Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920).
Grand Canyon is a National Park, not a National Monument. It was established by an Act of Congress under a different Law. We are talking about National Monuments, a completely different issue. National Monuments are created by anflagscott wrote:@hikeaz I don't have time to dig into case law, but it looks like your legal theory is wrong.https://www.law360.com/articles/864817/ ... act-legacyAstute readers might wonder how areas such as the Grand Canyon meet the definition of “the smallest area compatible” in the act. The key is that in many cases, “scientific interest” can justify protection of an area such as the canyon. That interpretation was upheld in Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920).
Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).Al_HikesAZ wrote:Grand Canyon is a National Park, not a National Monument. It was established by an Act of Congress under a different Law. We are talking about National Monuments, a completely different issue. National Monuments are created by anflagscott wrote:@hikeaz I don't have time to dig into case law, but it looks like your legal theory is wrong.https://www.law360.com/articles/864817/ ... act-legacyAstute readers might wonder how areas such as the Grand Canyon meet the definition of “the smallest area compatible” in the act. The key is that in many cases, “scientific interest” can justify protection of an area such as the canyon. That interpretation was upheld in Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920).
Executive Order by the President not by an Act of Congress.
Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument.flagscott wrote:Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).
https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park
Al_HikesAZ wrote:Technically, Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument. Otherwise Roosevelt would not have been able to designate it as a National Monument.flagscott wrote:Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).
https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park
Um, okay, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Any public land can become a national monument. And before Roosevelt stepped in, there was apparently a lot of development happening (rule about what people could do on public lands were not enforced much back in the day).Al_HikesAZ wrote:Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument.flagscott wrote:Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).
https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park
It had to be public land before it could be a National Monument. National Parks are created under an Act of Congress not under Executive Order.flagscott wrote:Um, okay, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Any public land can become a national monument. And before Roosevelt stepped in, there was apparently a lot of development happening (rule about what people could do on public lands were not enforced much back in the day).Al_HikesAZ wrote:Grand Canyon started its journey to becoming a National Park as a National Forest under President Harrison in 1893 https://www.mygrandcan... That is the basis through which Teddy Roosevelt could set it aside as a National Monument.flagscott wrote:Grand Canyon started out as a National Monument, created under the Antiquities Act by Teddy Roosevelt (and thank goodness or the area would probably have been developed to death).
https://www.mygrandcanyonpark.com/park/ ... ional-park
Meh, those changes were under Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. There was no environmental movement to speak of back then, and there were no legal challenges the changes. Things are very different today.amy1300 wrote:According to High Country News, at least 2 national monuments (including Grand Canyon!) have been shrunk in the past.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/49.14/monumen ... -permanent
I suspect that it will be a while before the issue gets ironed out.
Apparently!Tough_Boots wrote:Someone actually reads High Country News?
From wiki:
According to a review in The Christian Science Monitor, the paper "is closely read in congressional offices and state houses, as well as in the government agencies that control most of the rural West. It has broken important stories subsequently picked up by the New York Times and other national media." Former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt described the paper as "the only place where you can really know what's happening in the rest of the West."
Ditto. I'd have a lifetime subscription if such a thing existed.rwstorm wrote:I have been a fan/reader of HCN for decades.