Dep. Of Interior-Natl. Monuments Review-Public comment

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-releases-list-monuments-under-review-announces-first-ever-formal

Public comments starting May 12

Do it.

Thanks for the post Dustin. I'll spread this around as well! 

Thanks for this. Spread the word all. 

Awesome.  What a dynamic time.

sean burke wrote:

Awesome.  What a dynamic time.

Meaning what exactly?

Frankly, this seems like window dressing.  The Trump administration could care less for the opinions of those who would argue for preservation.  He's already shown his contempt for the law, and even facts.  He going to at least try to do what he wants until he's enjoined by a court.  

Can anyone recommend some nonprofits who are best equipped to fight this fight? I intend to call already, but I have a little bit of cash I can throw their way. I know Access Fund's mission overall, but I'd imagine there are some bigger parties with deeper chests and better lobbyists?

National Parks Foundation?

Fat Dad wrote:...The Trump administration could care less for the opinions of those who would argue for preservation....

You are most likely correct, however I still think it is worth the small amount of time it takes to comment.

Dustin B wrote:

You are most likely correct, however I still think it is worth the small amount of time it takes to comment.

I agree.  I'm skeptical but it can't hurt to try.

Trump has argued that this review is necessary because public input was never asked for to begin with when these Monuments were designated. This is an opportunity to let him and the Department of Interior know how we feel. Here is more information about the Monuments that may be reduced or reversed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monument-review-trump-us_us_590ce0c4e4b0d5d9049c8865

Our opinions matter. Remember the "Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act" that congress introduced in January? That was quickly shelved after public outcry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/02/facing-backlash-utah-rep-jason-chaffetz-withdraws-bill-to-transfer-federal-land-to-the-states/?utm_term=.f3a9073e11da

It still boggles my mind that Ryan Zinke could be against public lands and still gets elected in Montana....

Mike-Mayhem wrote:

It still boggles my mind that Ryan Zinke could be against public lands and still gets elected in Montana....

He is for public lands, but not for preserving them, i.e. all for public lands being used for extractive industries as well as grazing and timber harvesting.

He is in utah right now: http://www.sltrib.com/news/5262990-155/zinke-says-monument-designations-have-been

http://bearsears.patagonia.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bearsears&utm_term=&utm_content=

Numbers matter.  You may think that this is 'window dressing' - and it might be - but having a shit ton of letters saying that the monuments are important can be effective. (they do count them and put them in pro/con columns.)  This much is certain....if few letters are submitted, it makes it much easier for the Admin to do what it wants.

The next question is what to include in the letter.  Let me take a second to say, if what follows seems like too much work...just submit a quick note (it is better than nothing and will get counted towards the "I'm for national monument' talley that Interior will do.) 

Regulatory Impact Analyses (which likely won't be done but does give a sense of the type data that might be useful) usually are focused on how much economic activity gets generated. [As an economist, I can tell you this is the wrong way to go about the analysis but it is what is done (Willingness to Pay/Consumer Surplus/Compensating Variation are proper measures but whatever).] 

As such, I'd say to include how far you drive to get to the Monuments you recreate at (more important that you might think) and how much you spend along the way in addition to what you spend on the gear you use at the sites.  Noting what is spent in proximity to the monument is helpful.

Since Option value and Existence value are important (but not as important as they should be), I'd mention that even if you haven't visited some of the sites, you value the option to visit them and lastly, even if you have no plans to ever visit, mention that you are better off knowing it exists in its protected state.

By having this information in the docket, even if the Admin does nothing with it, it is available for other NGOs to gather and hopefully do something with.  (e.g. a post-deadline analysis of individual submittals)

Lastly, I'd encourage you to join an organization that will have some sway (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance generally seems pretty effective).  I say join because as I mentioned earlier, numbers matter.  An NGO has more clout when they can say they have XXX paying members.  

So take a few moments, stop reading this, and go submit a comment...it's easier than you think.  

I'm usually not one to bring my personal life in to these forums, but I have recently started a blog focused on legal analysis of issues affecting outdoor recreation. My first real post is about this issue. I am trying to keep my own opinions silent, and focus on explaining what is happening. Hopefully my posts are helpful to understanding the issues. Admins, if this promotion is not allowed, please delete but I believe it's relevant.

https://silentrecreation.wordpress.com/

Allen Sanderson wrote:

He is for public lands, but not for preserving them, i.e. all for public lands being used for extractive industries as well as grazing and timber harvesting.

He is in utah right now: http://www.sltrib.com/news/5262990-155/zinke-says-monument-designations-have-been

http://bearsears.patagonia.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=bearsears&utm_term=&utm_content=

Haha in my opinion that's against public lands :0 

I was surprised to see that there wasn't any requirement to specify your postcode and whatnot. So I guess that means us foreigners can comment too? I'm French but have written a generic message in favour of public lands, I should perhaps have been more specific and mentioned the places I've been/will go to and how far I've come from? I've been to three of those monuments and am going back next October, so... If you believe that could help I could post this to UKClimbing.com and camptocamp.org (French climbing forum) or a French forum that focuses on Southwest US.

Adrien G. - I believe each of the items you proposed would be useful.  

Briefly, regarding the international comments, generally the impacts considered are only impacts to the US.  Your visits impact the US so are important.  

The Social Cost of Carbon, used until recently by agencies in doing impact analysis, is a global cost, not just a US cost.  So there is precedent for including international impacts even if it is controversial.

Last day to comment folks!!  Make your voice heard!

plantmandan wrote:

Trump has argued that this review is necessary because public input was never asked for to begin with when these Monuments were designated. This is an opportunity to let him and the Department of Interior know how we feel. Here is more information about the Monuments that may be reduced or reversed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monument-review-trump-us_us_590ce0c4e4b0d5d9049c8865

Our opinions matter. Remember the "Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act" that congress introduced in January? That was quickly shelved after public outcry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/02/facing-backlash-utah-rep-jason-chaffetz-withdraws-bill-to-transfer-federal-land-to-the-states/?utm_term=.f3a9073e11da

 

That was shelved because the hunters threatened to get their guns out and start hunting politicians that threatened their hunting lands. We carry no such weight with our pleas.