Post by rockpickerforever on May 18, 2012 11:14:48 GMT -5
Although this could be considered rock related (as it relates to collecting), I guess it is probably more political, so I moved it here.
Sorry this is so long, but it's important! Everyone should know about it. At least click on the link, so you can be informed.
Although I'm in California, I'm on an email list for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. I recently (May 11, 2012) received a news release, concerning a federal proposal to create the "Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument." The AZ Game and Fish Commission voted to oppose this, citing many reasons. I applaud them for their stance!! It is being proposed by the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Center for Biological Diversity (they are the ones that had a large percentage of the dunes in the Glamis area closed down, in order to protect the endangered Pierson's Milk-vetch - which it turned out, actually thrived in areas where off-roaders dispersed the seeds!) and the Wilderness Society. And of course, the Sierra club backs it as well.
Now, I watch the news, but I surely haven't heard anything about this, have you? Here's just one of many links to fill you in on the details: www.xploreutah.net/story/groups-propose-national-monument-near-grand-canyon
Should this proposal go forward, it would for all intents and purposes make more public lands off limits to the general public, under the guise of "preserving" it. We're talking 1.7 MILLION acres in northern Arizona, 7000 of which are currently privately held. The new monument is being proposed to “preserve” and in some cases lock away these lands rather than conserve them, which could impact public access, recreation, grazing, and the ability of the commission to manage wildlife.
AFG is slightly miffed, and rightly so, for the proponents of this monument insinuating that the lands are not being protected. This proposal would snatch control of these lands from several different agencies, and put it into the hands of the feds.
My favorite quote from the press release: “It’s not as if these lands aren’t already being managed and conserved. This is really about changing the status of these lands and adding another layer of federal bureaucracy, which has far ranging implications,” said Commissioner Kurt R. Davis.
The Game and Fish Commission pointed out that the vast majority of lands in question are already public lands currently managed and conserved under multiple use concepts, primarily by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, although the proposal would also impact State Trust Lands and private holdings as well.
Commissioners also pointed out that they very much oppose any process that eliminates public participation, especially from those in the communities affected.
Several things that bother me - First of all, why doesn't anybody know about this??? I could find only one TV station that had the story on their website, and that was in St George, UT. Do the people in Arizona know what is being proposed for their state?
While the proposed designation allows for continued public access, sightseeing, hiking, wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing, it also features multiple restrictions:
It would lock up hundreds of thousands of acres in public lands, without Congressional approval or public input. That's a biggie to me.
Without access, the US Forestry Service would be unable to mechanically thin high-risk forests with unnatural densities of small-diameter trees, or the potential to do prescribed burns, thereby exposing these forest habitats to the possibility of catastrophic wild fires in the future.
There would be restrictions on recreational activities primarily, ATV’s and off road vehicles. If you have an ATV, forget about using it to carry your rock bucket! Oh, wait, I forgot, you wouldn't be able to pick up any rocks...
It would also entail voluntary retirement of grazing leasing on the lands. The department analysis points out that the loss of livestock management can cause significant loss of water availability for wildlife, besides negatively impacting the local economy. Why would they want to do that now???
It would end access to energy production and other job-creating economic activities. Again, now is not the time to stifle economic growth. We're all struggling right now...
So what's next? What other PUBLIC LANDS are they going to take away in the name of "conservation?" 'Cause you know, this federal appropriation won't stop there. Too bad the green-weenies in CA can't see the light! Thanks again AGF, for opposing this proposal, and bringing it to light! The Sierra Club is pretty pissed at your opposal to this land grab. Guess they thought they'd just shove it down our throats with no opposition??
Sorry this is so long, but it's important! Everyone should know about it. At least click on the link, so you can be informed.
Although I'm in California, I'm on an email list for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. I recently (May 11, 2012) received a news release, concerning a federal proposal to create the "Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument." The AZ Game and Fish Commission voted to oppose this, citing many reasons. I applaud them for their stance!! It is being proposed by the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Center for Biological Diversity (they are the ones that had a large percentage of the dunes in the Glamis area closed down, in order to protect the endangered Pierson's Milk-vetch - which it turned out, actually thrived in areas where off-roaders dispersed the seeds!) and the Wilderness Society. And of course, the Sierra club backs it as well.
Now, I watch the news, but I surely haven't heard anything about this, have you? Here's just one of many links to fill you in on the details: www.xploreutah.net/story/groups-propose-national-monument-near-grand-canyon
Should this proposal go forward, it would for all intents and purposes make more public lands off limits to the general public, under the guise of "preserving" it. We're talking 1.7 MILLION acres in northern Arizona, 7000 of which are currently privately held. The new monument is being proposed to “preserve” and in some cases lock away these lands rather than conserve them, which could impact public access, recreation, grazing, and the ability of the commission to manage wildlife.
AFG is slightly miffed, and rightly so, for the proponents of this monument insinuating that the lands are not being protected. This proposal would snatch control of these lands from several different agencies, and put it into the hands of the feds.
My favorite quote from the press release: “It’s not as if these lands aren’t already being managed and conserved. This is really about changing the status of these lands and adding another layer of federal bureaucracy, which has far ranging implications,” said Commissioner Kurt R. Davis.
The Game and Fish Commission pointed out that the vast majority of lands in question are already public lands currently managed and conserved under multiple use concepts, primarily by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, although the proposal would also impact State Trust Lands and private holdings as well.
Commissioners also pointed out that they very much oppose any process that eliminates public participation, especially from those in the communities affected.
Several things that bother me - First of all, why doesn't anybody know about this??? I could find only one TV station that had the story on their website, and that was in St George, UT. Do the people in Arizona know what is being proposed for their state?
While the proposed designation allows for continued public access, sightseeing, hiking, wildlife observation, hunting, and fishing, it also features multiple restrictions:
It would lock up hundreds of thousands of acres in public lands, without Congressional approval or public input. That's a biggie to me.
Without access, the US Forestry Service would be unable to mechanically thin high-risk forests with unnatural densities of small-diameter trees, or the potential to do prescribed burns, thereby exposing these forest habitats to the possibility of catastrophic wild fires in the future.
There would be restrictions on recreational activities primarily, ATV’s and off road vehicles. If you have an ATV, forget about using it to carry your rock bucket! Oh, wait, I forgot, you wouldn't be able to pick up any rocks...
It would also entail voluntary retirement of grazing leasing on the lands. The department analysis points out that the loss of livestock management can cause significant loss of water availability for wildlife, besides negatively impacting the local economy. Why would they want to do that now???
It would end access to energy production and other job-creating economic activities. Again, now is not the time to stifle economic growth. We're all struggling right now...
So what's next? What other PUBLIC LANDS are they going to take away in the name of "conservation?" 'Cause you know, this federal appropriation won't stop there. Too bad the green-weenies in CA can't see the light! Thanks again AGF, for opposing this proposal, and bringing it to light! The Sierra Club is pretty pissed at your opposal to this land grab. Guess they thought they'd just shove it down our throats with no opposition??