Hurray, three more places where they will exclude you if you are not enjoying the preferred method of recreation.Casa Escarlata Robles Too said:Thanks. OC
It's nice to see our government trying/doing to preserve our public lands. For all to use.
Frank
Which will change based on what Facebook tells the pols how many votes they'll get instead of the people that actually use and care about the area,camper357 said:Hurray, three more places where they will exclude you if you are not enjoying the preferred method of recreation.
Glad to hear it. Protecting large tracts of land for now and future generations is the right thing to do.Casa Escarlata Robles Too said:Thanks. OC
It's nice to see our government trying/doing to preserve our public lands. For all to use.
Frank
3X-now is the time to watch what happens next and get involved with any future planning for these areas if you care about them.Lighthawk said:Glad to hear it. Protecting large tracts of land for now and future generations is the right thing to do.
Agree with confusing. I have seen areas closed to dispersed camping. NFS then put in campgrounds and charges for what was once free. May come a day when you can backpack or camp with full hook ups, nothing in between.longhorn1 said:Very confusing. After googling these new monuments, and seeing that what Obama has signed into law, while great on one hand, may actually be far less than the bills that have been previously presented. What was signed by Obama may limit the use of these lands for the purpose that we all have in mind. Roads closed preventing further exploring and loss of dispersed camping sites. I was extremely confused. jd
Advmoto18 said:Thx for bring that to my intention!
National Monuments are on land already owned by the federal government, not land grabs from states afaik.
I poorly worded what I meant into something entirely different.
Sadly with these monument designations, many long time, historic users will now find themselves likely prohibited from using these lands.
Often times, these designations of huge acreages have little to do with "historic" or "scientific interests" as stated in the Antiquities Act of 1906 (amended) and have more to do with politics. For goodness sake, what lands didn't have native Americans camping and grazing their livestock 200 years ago?
Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in "leave no trace" and "tread lightly" but I do not support the prohibition of historic uses when only a small amount of acreage out of perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of acres has "interest" per the Act.
As Smoke said, it's "our land"! Not the folks in DC. But, in truth, public hearings and public input have little to do with DC political decisions. And this crosses political party boundaries. It seems to be political pay back for interests groups IMO.