Legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate would, if allowed to become law, gut the Antiquities Act that so many presidents have used to preserve and protect valuable landscapes and historical settings, according to the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
The measure is being considered as an amendment to the Farm Bill on the Senate floor and should be opposed by anyone who cares about the special places that are part of the National Park System, according to the Park Service retirees.
The bill's language would gut the Antiquities Act, which was used by past presidents to set aside places such as Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Carlsbad Caverns and Acadia national parks.
“Some of this nation’s most loved parks were first set aside and protected as national monuments and were later legislated by the Congress into national parks," said Maureen Finnerty, chair of the Coalition's Executive Council. "The modification to the Antiquities Act would require that any presidential proclamation be approved by the governor and the legislature in the state in which the potential monument would be established. Such a requirement would essentially render the Antiquities Act meaningless as such accord rarely exists.
"Moreover, the president can only employ the provisions of the Act on lands already owned by the people of the United States. It cannot be used on state or privately-owned lands," she added.
Additionally, the group says, H.R. 4089 could open up many areas of the National Park System to hunting, trapping, and recreational shooting. Most national park sites are closed to such activities in the interests of public safety, visitor enjoyment and resource protection. The House defeated an amendment to the bill that would have specifically excluded all the 397 units of the National Park System from these activities, which are already legal and appropriate on millions of acres of other public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
“NPS has long governed units of the National Park System based on the principle that hunting, trapping, collecting specimens and other uses that extract natural resources from park area ecosystems are not allowed, unless Congress has clearly authorized such activities," said former Glacier Bay National Park Superintendent Cherry Payne, a member of the Coalition's Executive Council. "This longstanding principle has been confirmed by the courts.
"H.R 4089 would eliminate this principle because it would recognize that hunting, trapping, fishing and collecting are to be affirmatively supported and facilitated on all federal lands," she added. "As a result, H.R. 4089 would stand NPS management policy on its head, creating a presumption that consumptive uses are the norm, and must be allowed unless expressly prohibited.”
Comments
Jim Isn't all legislation "vague"? But actually in the case you cited it isnt. The law says the sec of interior "shall not implement restrictions" without public comment.Wilderness is designated by Congress as are the Wilderness restrictions. The sec of interior has nothing to do with it. So once again your fears are unfounded.
Anon 2:14
Not that "personal vested interest" augments or diminishes the validity of the arguments but my personal interest is that I fish. I don't hunt but believe those that want to should have the opportunity.
I think imtnbke and Rick Smith are both right. There's 0% chance s. 2066 gets passed; the bills' (co)sponsors in the House and Senate can use it for fundraising and can take the issue into campaign season. That said, given the party-line support in the House and Senate for this awful bill, there are some close Senate races to keep an eye on.
Anonymous, could you possibly be overlooking Wilderness Study Areas, which are to have their "wilderness characteristics" maintained by the Interior Department until Congress decides whether to designate them as wilderness? The "shall not implement restrictions" could in theory leave them open to mining, logging, dam building, etc.
Beyond the issue of wilderness, potential or otherwise, when monuments in the past were created and given to the National Park Service to manage, often the NPS would work to phase out livestock grazing, ORV use, hunting, and other uses that conflicted with the agency's mandate to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations..."
This, too, could be disrupted by the language in H.R. 4089. For example, in Utah the San Rafael Swell has, I believe, 7 WSAs. Now, if H.R. 4089 became law, there's no doubt that Utah officials would oppose its designation as a national monument and that would be that under 4089's provision.s
But let's say that somehow the state officials OKed the designation. The second hurdle would be the "shall not" provision, although politics being politics, it's likely that if an administration was determined to block ORV use, mining, and energy development, they could allow for a public comment period and then decide to phase those uses out just the same.
It could "in theory if you ignored Sec 104 e 3 "3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are not intended to authorize or facilitate commodity development, use, or extraction, or motorized recreational access or use."
Clearly is not the intent of this legislation to allow extraction or mortorized recreational use.
Yes - God forbid, they might have to listen to public comment before they took action.
Why don't you (plural) just admit you don't like guns and don't want hunting instead of making up all these convulted theories, could be's and speculative maybes.
Maybe it's because we've all been there and have had to fight against too many "speculative maybes" in the past. Public comment is a formality that is often ignored or sidestepped when politicians begin playing power games. In case you haven't noticed, politicians speak with split tongues and can find ways to make even a skunk smell good -- until you let it in to your house.
When any proposed law or regulation are based on wide vaguaries such as those seen in this legislation, people who have been there in the past become alarmed because we're heading back into familiar territory.
Lee:
"When any proposed law or regulation are based on wide vaguaries such as those seen in this legislation, people who have been there in the past become alarmed because we're heading back into familiar territory."
Seems to me to be a common practice (or at least a temptation) for conflicted politicians to play in those vaguries, deceive, lie and say anything even something completely opposite of the truth to present their arguments. Very apparent in todays political yakking! People are noticing.
Lee - Glad to hear you are such an anti-government advocate. I agree. The less government, the better.