Good Job, Mr. President. Now WE must demand that national taxpayer money be used to preserve ALL national and state and local parks and protected areas for OUR enjoyment - not for private profit.
4
Readers may remember a recent NYTimes op-ed which detailed the folly of adding new monuments when we are unable (or shamefully unwilling) to maintain existing parks and monuments. It's like intentionally having more and more kids while your current children are starving and neglected. There is a bit of arrogance to that.
1
OUR INVESTMENT TODAY
PAST PRESERVED
FOR OUR FUTURE
PROTECTED
Thank You,
Mr. President OBAMA
PAST PRESERVED
FOR OUR FUTURE
PROTECTED
Thank You,
Mr. President OBAMA
3
The Park Service is seriously underfunded with billions in deferred maintenance at hundreds of parks and historical sites and the President is adding new sites that will be underfunded too. The President should propose complete funding for all National Parks, Monuments and historical sites. He has never done so.
2
This is all a cover to shut off rail access to the Yucca Mountain site.
For those who are applauding these three new National Monuments, I encourage you to go to central Nevada where the Basin and Range Monument will be. Aside from an art installation and a few petroglyphs, there's nothing there worth preserving -- particularly not 703,000 acres' worth of sagebrush.
Contrast this with Great Basin National Park nearby -- a place with a 13,000 ft peak, marvelous caves, and groves of the world's oldest trees. Great Basin deserves to be a park; Basin and Range does not.
This is all about Harry Reid's desire to ensure that the very best location for the storage of our high-level nuclear waste never comes online. Yucca Mountain is far from population centers and far from any groundwater to contaminate. Instead, our failure to act means that our waste sits in pools, leaking and contaminating the biosphere, often near population centers and waterways.
The Hanford Nuclear Reservation contains 2/3 of the country's high-level nuclear waste. The plant was instrumental in the Manhattan project and continued producing plutonium throughout the Cold War. Its waste leaks into the groundwater just upstream of the Columbia River in Washington. Reid would rather pollute the largest river system in the western United States than allow waste to be buried miles from anywhere in empty Nevada. How utterly craven.
I love Nevada and visit it frequently. This monument is a mistake.
For those who are applauding these three new National Monuments, I encourage you to go to central Nevada where the Basin and Range Monument will be. Aside from an art installation and a few petroglyphs, there's nothing there worth preserving -- particularly not 703,000 acres' worth of sagebrush.
Contrast this with Great Basin National Park nearby -- a place with a 13,000 ft peak, marvelous caves, and groves of the world's oldest trees. Great Basin deserves to be a park; Basin and Range does not.
This is all about Harry Reid's desire to ensure that the very best location for the storage of our high-level nuclear waste never comes online. Yucca Mountain is far from population centers and far from any groundwater to contaminate. Instead, our failure to act means that our waste sits in pools, leaking and contaminating the biosphere, often near population centers and waterways.
The Hanford Nuclear Reservation contains 2/3 of the country's high-level nuclear waste. The plant was instrumental in the Manhattan project and continued producing plutonium throughout the Cold War. Its waste leaks into the groundwater just upstream of the Columbia River in Washington. Reid would rather pollute the largest river system in the western United States than allow waste to be buried miles from anywhere in empty Nevada. How utterly craven.
I love Nevada and visit it frequently. This monument is a mistake.
2
So have you talked Senator Mike Lee of Utah about storage of atomics? He knows all about that stuff. And I am sure that Mike disagrees with you about the value of Yucca Mountain. And besides a senator Mike is a top flight attorney and he knows what is best for the US, he wants to store it in Tooele County, Utah. Any objections?
Yes. I have family in Tooele County.
The only reason to store it in Tooele County is money. Surprised? Senator Lee and his companions from Utah are unashamed when it comes to taking money from Energy Solutions.
One last thought, Utah at this time is refusing to allow depleted uranium to be stored in Tooele County due to the toxicity.
The only reason to store it in Tooele County is money. Surprised? Senator Lee and his companions from Utah are unashamed when it comes to taking money from Energy Solutions.
One last thought, Utah at this time is refusing to allow depleted uranium to be stored in Tooele County due to the toxicity.
I lived in Nevada for 20 years and know this landscape well. I have camped, hiked, driven and flown above every acre that President Obama declared a national monument. You are simply wrong, Mr. Adams. You misunderstand some key facts: Great Basin National Park, a place I know well, is spectacular. But that gem of a park actually has no basin. Great Range National Park would be a more fitting name. As a national park, hunting is not allowed. The new Basin and Range National Monument will be managed by the BLM and added to the it National Conservation Lands. National Conservation Lands allow hunting, a critical distinction.
Furthermore, the area connects FS roadless areas to existing BLM wilderness, providing lands cape connectivity and permeability of a kind that is difficult to find in the lower 48. Only 2% of the area has been surveyed for cultural resources, so there is much more coming in the way of discovery of Native American culture and geology of the area. Bristlecone pines, limestone caves, rock art, fossils, scenic beauty: the sum of these parts is amazing. As we learn more about conservation biology, climate mitigation and habitat migration, we need to look beyond traditional "backpacker" perspectives on what should be preserved.
Furthermore, the area connects FS roadless areas to existing BLM wilderness, providing lands cape connectivity and permeability of a kind that is difficult to find in the lower 48. Only 2% of the area has been surveyed for cultural resources, so there is much more coming in the way of discovery of Native American culture and geology of the area. Bristlecone pines, limestone caves, rock art, fossils, scenic beauty: the sum of these parts is amazing. As we learn more about conservation biology, climate mitigation and habitat migration, we need to look beyond traditional "backpacker" perspectives on what should be preserved.
4
Fascinating stuff. Obama got something right!
Nice museum there. The bones as they were found is kind of novel and interesting.
I'm a Republican, mostly, but also strongly believe in setting aside land for environmental conservation. I don't understand the GOP's resistance to these sorts of actions. Increasingly the most precious and rare thing on this planet is the state of nature as God created it, untouched by man.
Environmental issues are probably the one thing that would make me vote Democrat. We need to think long-term about our impact on this planet. Do you know we are living through the sixth major extinction event in a billion years?
Environmental issues are probably the one thing that would make me vote Democrat. We need to think long-term about our impact on this planet. Do you know we are living through the sixth major extinction event in a billion years?
18
Monuments to the past are always welcome, but it is said to know that we do not have monuments to the present and the current time will not be remembered for anything great except maybe gay marriage.
This era will be remembered for the monstrous unholy alliance that the GOP has made with corporate greed.
14
President Obama has designated 19 national monuments.
Well, at least he's good at something.
Well, at least he's good at something.
2
The previous president excelled at destroying things at a monumental scale.
17
Well there is that little matter of pulling us out of the recession and providing people who needed it with health care.
16
Remember Bin laden? And health care
4
This is great, and all, but maybe the federal government should help out the city of St. Louis where the steps along the Gateway Arch are crumbling after decades of neglect.
2
Talk to the Republicans about this. They cut budget after budget so that there's no money for repair and upkeep of the parks (or anything else.) They wouldn't dare tax their billionaire handlers to get the money for something like this.
2
Nice job Mr. President! (and I'm Republican).
15
These places are for everyone and I'm glad you recognize and appreciate that. Thank you for speaking up.
9
As the President open 3 new monument sites, he should close 3 confederate ones, ones that are on public land.
8
You can't just disregard that segment of our history. It would be a shame to avoid all knowledge or access thereof
1
The pyramids were built by slaves, we don't tear them down because of that.
Confederate battle sites, monuments etc. can be a powerful teaching tool and a reminder of mistakes we don't want to repeat.
Confederate battle sites, monuments etc. can be a powerful teaching tool and a reminder of mistakes we don't want to repeat.
2
those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
1
Thank you President Obama for thinking about the future and not being short-sighted. As a recent graduate in the conservation field it is encouraging to see measures to protect the environment coming out of DC. It often seems that conservation measures are not taken seriously enough since most people don't care what happens to the world after they are gone.
The Boulder-White Clouds in Idaho need to be the next National Monument designation!
The Boulder-White Clouds in Idaho need to be the next National Monument designation!
7
#thanksobama
No, seriously, thank you, Mr. President.
No, seriously, thank you, Mr. President.
6
This is not going to play well in Texas. Especially if they discover that there's oil under those mammoth tusks.
5
No, Texans will probably object because it was our Black President who was behind the decision. They don't are what he does--they're against it.
7
Or that the earth wasn't created in 7x24 hour days
Meaning....... Dinosaurs existed. Oh no my expensive creationist college education , was a waste? OMG
Meaning....... Dinosaurs existed. Oh no my expensive creationist college education , was a waste? OMG
3
Gee, do you think the earth might be older than 6,000-15,000 years? Whodathunk?
2
While I am all for preserving historic and scenic public land, this is an abuse of the President's narrow, limited power to designate national monuments. That law was intended to give the President the power to protect actual monuments built for great American figures -- not massive tracts of land that mainly just have environmental and historic value. Domestic policy decisions about blocking off development in entire regions should be made by Congress by majority vote, not the unilateral dictate of the President.
If Congress is abdicating its duty to protect the environment, the proper response is to vote them out of office -- not to support the President in usurping Congress's powers. Otherwise, we could end up with a Republican president abusing the national monuments power in a couple years. For example, if a rapidly expanding city is threatening a fracking company's plans to use certain land, and the President uses the national monuments power to block the city from expanding further toward the fracking company's desired land, surely we would all agree this was an abuse of authority.
If Congress is abdicating its duty to protect the environment, the proper response is to vote them out of office -- not to support the President in usurping Congress's powers. Otherwise, we could end up with a Republican president abusing the national monuments power in a couple years. For example, if a rapidly expanding city is threatening a fracking company's plans to use certain land, and the President uses the national monuments power to block the city from expanding further toward the fracking company's desired land, surely we would all agree this was an abuse of authority.
5
The president's power to proclaim national monuments is wide and unfettered, and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in at least two landmark cases. Thus the present declarations are by no means abuses under the law.
As for a GOP president proclaiming a national monument to block a city's development, this is the kind of contrived and outlandish scenario that causes one to chuckle in amusement.
In fact Obama has been quite conservative when it comes to the use of the Antiquities Act. Unlike Theodore Roosevelt, Obama is no outdoorsman. There exist dozens of worthy sites yet to be named! I second the nomination of the San Rafael Swell in Utah, which possesses scenery worthy of any national park.
As for a GOP president proclaiming a national monument to block a city's development, this is the kind of contrived and outlandish scenario that causes one to chuckle in amusement.
In fact Obama has been quite conservative when it comes to the use of the Antiquities Act. Unlike Theodore Roosevelt, Obama is no outdoorsman. There exist dozens of worthy sites yet to be named! I second the nomination of the San Rafael Swell in Utah, which possesses scenery worthy of any national park.
13
"That law was intended to give the President the power to protect actual monuments built for great American figures" -- Most definitely incorrect! I don't know that the Antiquities Act of 1906 has ever been used for such a purpose. The first National Monument, Devil's Tower, was built by God or Nature, depending on one's beliefs. Teddy Roosevelt made it a monument less than 4 months after enaction of the law.
The original motivation was the protection of artifacts "built" by pre-USA inhabitants of these lands. However, the language of the Act gives the President broad scope for "the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest".
Note well, this is a power expressly granted to the President by Congress, not a usurpation of Congressional power. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld presidential discretion under this Act, which Congress could of course repeal at its pleasure.
The original motivation was the protection of artifacts "built" by pre-USA inhabitants of these lands. However, the language of the Act gives the President broad scope for "the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest".
Note well, this is a power expressly granted to the President by Congress, not a usurpation of Congressional power. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld presidential discretion under this Act, which Congress could of course repeal at its pleasure.
7
Tom, as I'm sure you know, the fact that the Supreme Court has found a law constitutional on its face, and has upheld specific applications of a law, does not mean that all conceivable applications are constitutionally valid. In other words, the fact that the Supreme Court has allowed presidents to interpret broadly what qualifies as a "monument" does not mean the President now has limitless discretion to declare anything a monument.
Before President Obama designated "260 million acres" as "monuments," many would have thought this was -- as you put it -- "the kind of contrived and outlandish scenario that causes one to chuckle in amusement." Yet it happened. And if you can't imagine a Republican president later abusing the monuments power in a way that opposes your policy preferences, that just reflects a lack of creativity on your part.
Before President Obama designated "260 million acres" as "monuments," many would have thought this was -- as you put it -- "the kind of contrived and outlandish scenario that causes one to chuckle in amusement." Yet it happened. And if you can't imagine a Republican president later abusing the monuments power in a way that opposes your policy preferences, that just reflects a lack of creativity on your part.
2
We need more sites preserved in Texas. Compared to other Western states, Texas is woefully underrepresented when it comes to federally protected lands. What can happen when there is a scarcity of public land is the overuse and abuse of the few available places. Bravo Mr. President! Now, can we protect the several streams and creeks in central Texas that culminate in the waters of Barton Springs!
6
given Texas recent sedition against the federal government, I think we can hold off on designating anything there for a while.
2
Texas is a living monument! To stupidity.
3
That'll happen when you keep electing people who primarily want to sell that land at a profit.
1
Greater Canyon Lands National Monument, San Rafael Swell National Monument, and Cedar Mesa National Monument all have nice rings to them too. Hint...hint...nudge...nudge.
3
To Republican critics: You know, you can take your families to these sites too -- they're for everybody!
11
No they will not. They are on their black list.
1
If he were alive today, Teddy Roosevelt would be cheering what Obama has done and booing the GOP for their reaction.
20
"The Waco Mammoth National Monument will include the well-preserved remains of Columbian mammoths from more than 65,000 years ago, including the nation’s only recorded discovery of a nursery herd of mammoths" . The Mammoth has been discovered in Texas where most voters believe that the Earth is 5000 years old.
Sorry, I know it's not the topic of the article, but I couldn't resist to point that out.
Sorry, I know it's not the topic of the article, but I couldn't resist to point that out.
33
Long after President Obama departs the scene, these National Monuments will live on to honor him, much as President Theodore Roosevelt's legacy of parkland lives on for all Americans. I'm inclined to think the same will be true of President Clinton who, fifty years from now, may well be best remembered for his creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Presidents have vision. Some envision parks and some envision wars. A rare President will be able not only to envision both but to do so appropriately. We count on our Presidents to think big picture, to think long term. Congress, and especially the House, appears to be more and more removed from any collective ability to think in that manner.
Presidents have vision. Some envision parks and some envision wars. A rare President will be able not only to envision both but to do so appropriately. We count on our Presidents to think big picture, to think long term. Congress, and especially the House, appears to be more and more removed from any collective ability to think in that manner.
17
Steve, I think Bill is more likely to be remembered for Monica's blue dress than for some rock formations in Utah.
Republicans are just the worst people. Yes, how dare the President act to protect these and other important sites for current and future generations. Oh, right. Doing so might limit someone's ability to make a profit.
26
Now if he could just squash all the dumb Republicans trying to bring wolves, cougars and other wildlife on these lands to extinction. No matter what the Teddy Roosevelts or the Barack Obamas do to propel us forward, the knuckle draggers with do two more things to try and destroy anything that can bring a buck to some business out there.
14
Congratulations Mr. Heizer
3
Bravo, Mr. President!
41
But these lands contain valuable development rights that could be leased to political donors for practically no money with no oversight. Sheesh. What a waste!
29
"They cover more than 260 million acres of public lands and waters."
How many acres are there in the US? --> Over 2.3 Billion.
"Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama..."
What is their reasoning? Maybe there is oil under that land or additional restricted free grazing acres for Cliven Bundy's herd?
For Republicans, no matter any benefit, everything Pres Obama does is a negative.
How many acres are there in the US? --> Over 2.3 Billion.
"Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama..."
What is their reasoning? Maybe there is oil under that land or additional restricted free grazing acres for Cliven Bundy's herd?
For Republicans, no matter any benefit, everything Pres Obama does is a negative.
67
The Times reports that "Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama, who has turned to that law more than any other president, for his expansive use of his authority to preserve sites of ecological, historical or cultural significance," but it fails to explain what argument those Republicans make as to why this is a bad thing. One suspects they want to make land available for commercial exploitation — but I would appreciate it if reporters would force them to actually say so.
56
The press is as buyable as the politicians are.
Doesn't make them evil or corrupt. What is is.
If they push they will be denied access, a death sentence.
The era of a journalist with the power of Edward R Murrow is gone. On the bright side, so is the era is that of Luce.
Doesn't make them evil or corrupt. What is is.
If they push they will be denied access, a death sentence.
The era of a journalist with the power of Edward R Murrow is gone. On the bright side, so is the era is that of Luce.
Congratulations to the city of Waco and by extension Baylor University for it's good work preserving and researching the Waco Mammoth site. Generations to come will be able to enjoy the site thanks to their work and this just reaffirms that to be the case.
38
The President acts like a patriot who loves his country and its heritage but yet still and again, these fools are critical.
91
This might look good from afar but one effect is to keep people out. As a geologist with an interest in western lands, I find this unfortunate and disturbing. There are places in Arizona where, long ago, I could drive to (and walk from there), but designation as a National Monument under the Clinton administration has made some areas so difficult to reach that they are effectively off limits.
7
Isn't protection of these areas the whole idea (or at least a big part of it)? If you have a harder time reaching it, then so do the vandals and grave robbers. The best solution, of course, is to have both access and protection, but this adds to the federal budget. And being able to avoid taxes so we can go down to the nearest Wal-mart and buy more cheap junk from China is certainly more important than spending to protect our national patrimony; I know that because Congressional Republicans told me so.
49
Lots of dumbbells out there who ruin fragile areas even with protection. Nice to have something besides craziness left to future generations of Americans.
19
National monuments designation does not necessarily exclude access. They are subject to management plans developed with public input. Some places should be only accessible by foot or horseback.
If everyone is allowed to drive wherever they want in wild lands, then the lands won't be worth visiting anymore. Things are different than they were "long ago".. If you've lived in Tucson for more than a few years, you may have noticed that there are a lot more people around than there used to be? And a lot more of them have 4WD vehicles that allow them to drive into what were once remote locations.
If everyone is allowed to drive wherever they want in wild lands, then the lands won't be worth visiting anymore. Things are different than they were "long ago".. If you've lived in Tucson for more than a few years, you may have noticed that there are a lot more people around than there used to be? And a lot more of them have 4WD vehicles that allow them to drive into what were once remote locations.
10
How dare our president save these lands for perpetuity! Clearly, the anti-capitalist Obama does not understand the value of developing these acres for 7-11s, Bed, Bath & Beyonds and CVS's.
106
"Republicans criticized the president for using his powered to protect these unique spaces for future generations". Those guys are hilarious.
79
What's the point of turning something into a fed. park, when no one will be able to enjoy the park? I mean, for the most part. There's no point in preserving anything if we can't use the land.
We're going to make discoveries all the time. Turning places into national monuments costs money.
The smart approach is to let private businesses / people spend their own money to keep and maintain the monuments that they believe in. Has anyone heard of GoFundMe?
How often are you going to visit a national park if you live in the city? Once every so many years? How much do you think you're paying per year to keep something like that operating?
We need to grow up and realize, we can't afford to pay for everything.