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
He clearly believes in American exceptionalism, though.
Well, we're headed there if we do an about-face and implement austerity measures.
Lee -
You paid $2,700 in taxes and Romney paid $2 million on top of giving $4 million to charity but he didn't pay enough? That on the surface is absurd. As absurd as calling his tax rate 14%. His nominal tax rate is that low because it comes from capital gains on corporations that have already been taxed at 35%. That means that income has actually been taxed at nearly 50%. If there is sloth in paying taxes, it isn't from the 1% that currently pay 37% of all federal income taxes (the highest level ever).
You want a list of things to get rid of:
Dept of Education (no constitutional basis for its existence)
Dept of Energy (no constitutional basis for its existence)
Dept of Housing and Urban develpment (no constitutional basis for its existence)
Get the feds out of housing (shut down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac et al)
Dramatically scale down foodstamps, unemployment payments, free cell phones to the truly needy.
Get rid of Obamacare
Stop funding inefficient technologies
the list goes on, including 19 billion of items in this book - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/coburn-waste-book-details-1-b...
Our founding fathers didn't want any of this. Go read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers (after you read the Constitution) and you will realize how far we have come from their dream.
Finally, I totally dismiss the concept of "greed". Tell me, what exactly is "greed" and who defines where hard work stops and "greed" begins. Today its those that are jealous.
I haven't bought in to any "talking points" I have studied history and economics. And my opinions are based on those and not on jealousy or a sense of entitlement. Your use of words such as "greed" that really suggest the buy in to talking points.
Fear and frustration are powerful and closely related emotions. Unfortunately, there are people out there who understand that and exploit the fear and frustration of Americans as they seek to extend their own goals -- whatever those goals may be. In too many cases, people who feel fear and frustration seek simplistic answers to assuage those feelings. That opens the door to people like Limbaugh and Beck and Rove who have learned to manipulate those people -- while at the same time reaping untold dollars for themselves. (Is that an example of greed?)
As for eliminating those agencies, it's perhaps wise to examine why each of them was created in the first place and what the goals for them were at the time. Instead of citing only the mantra "no constitutional basis for its existence," how about providing some reasons? Why should they be eliminated? And what will happen -- good or bad -- if they are eliminated?
The total amount of taxes by people like me or Romney has no bearing on fairness. Equality is what's fair -- and it's not equal now. True, I didn't donate four million to charity, but I did donate a whole lot. It's possible that some of us may have donated a larger percentage of our incomes than he did. Simply tossing out large numbers may not necessarily prove fairness or unfairness. Many people who made much less may actually have been much more generous. The only thing sure right now is that our tax laws are badly skewed in favor of those whose bank accounts are full to overflowing.
What's needed is not fear and frustration guiding our thinking. It's wisdom and a willingness to carefully think before acting. It's not a long list of sources of opinions. (By citing only Fox News and Senator Coburn, you are showing that you seek yours from a set of somewhat questionable places.) Read widely, seek differing opinions, examine those opinions carefully and then make the best decision you can. We may not agree, but seeking only the extremes will not lead to successful solutions.
Strange argument. (They didn't want alot of things, like the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage . But these seem to be very good things, nevertheless.)
Then why haven't they been eliminated by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?
If being unconstitituional isn't enough I don't know what is. It is not the role of the federal government to provide those services.
I see - so Romney should have paid $2,700 instead of $2 mil? $2,700 would make him "equal" to you. I suppose when you go to lunch your buddies, you make the guy that earns the most pay the most. Or maybe you believe your buddy should pay $40 a gallon for gas while you pay $4 because he makes 10x the money you make.
And in typical liberal fashion, you would rather dismiss the information based solely on the source rather than actual provide any factual refutation. Oh, and BTW Coburn's work was the result of efforts of the BIPARTISAN Gang of Six whose proposals to cut $3.7 trillion in federal spending was ignored by Obama and the Democratic dominate Senate.
No sense trying to be sensible with someone who refuses to be. We're wasting a lot of time and effort here. Today is a fine fall day and I'm going to go enjoy it.
Keep smiling.