lesuther wrote:
So I'm left scratching my head. But can anyone point out where back country airstrips have been allowed under Park management? I can't recall any...perhaps others can chime in (and I'm not talking about Bullfrog or other developed strips).

They are requesting this area be set aside as a National Monument via a presidential decree. Bill Clinton used his power as president to create the Grand Escalante Staircase Monument that way thus by-passing the normal political process. This is really a underhanded way to exclude participation by all citizens to have a voice in the process. Fortunately Utah lawmakers do not support a national monument decree.

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to a letter sent to President Obama by outdoor retailers, Utah lawmakers Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop, and Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, sent a letter to the President opposing the idea of creating a national monument in Utah under the Antiquities Act.

The lawmakers expressed their desire for a congressionally-driven process that would be more open and ensure all policy options and opinions are considered. The outdoor retailers are requesting that 1.4 million acres surrounding Canyonlands National Park be designated a national monument via presidential decree, something to which the delegation is unanimously opposed.

See: http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/utah-delegation-opposes-new-national-monument-idea

The Missouri River Breaks National Monument is managed by the park service. The RAF saved 6 out of 10 strips when they wanted to close all 10. The RAF has proven that Aviation has as much of a right to be there as anyone else, weather they are hiking or driving. They did it by joining in, being counted and being a participant in the decision process. The RAF isn’t a specialized group of people it’s you and me. So if you don’t like where this is going get off your soap box and participate by doing something about it. Join the RAF and get involved.

Rick

So I'm left scratching my head. But can anyone point out where back country airstrips have been allowed under Park management?

Yukon Charlie in AK comes to mind. The airstrip is darn near the only access until the river freezes up. And a great recreational area it is. MTV, this is your old turf, please chime in.

Thanks. cubscout

lesuther wrote:Their message simply doesn't seem clear on this issue...perhaps someone could contact SUWA and the NPS and find out from the get-go what the policy stance is going in to a proposed change.

Don't be deceived by SUWA's fluffy write-ups. They are clearly committed to removing all motorized recreation, even bicycles and ultimately people themselves from the beautiful backcountry. When you live in Utah, it gets played out almost daily on the news and on their commercials. Like the sophistries of old, they hide their motives from the unwashed public as they attack every user group that isn't wearing open-toed sandals.

The State should be managing those areas, not the Feds. The whole body of congress can't even pass a budget. How can we expect them to be stewards of the land.

What good does it do to preserve a place when there is hardly anyone left to preserve it for? SUWA will not stop until anything with an engine is for forbidden and no one is left but the PataGucci - clad backpacker.

Also, you can't compare this to Parks and Preserves in Alaska. There is no ANILCA in the lower 48.

I looked through the sites and like most, their purpose is always stated to be higher than their actions describe. They appear to be a single purpose or special interest group in pursuit of a presidential decree which bypasses any democratic pro/con input from the public ahead of creating a monument.

Q1. Did the congressional delegation from the state of the last monument delegation support or not support the presidential designation and what is the history of presidential designations made against the wishes of the receiving state? If designations are not made in opposition to state congressional delegations then some of that delegation has just become targets for this group at the next mid term elections. This is a single issue organization and they will shit can over that one issue.

Q2. In the case of getting the presidential designation does that skip all input stages and just hand a new monument over to the park service to implement their own rules? If that is the case then the whole battle lies in the effort to defeat the designation.

Q3. But, if there was a point in the rule-making, following the designation, at which RAF or anyone else could have had input into the future management of the designated area then is that the only backup plan if the designation effort succeeds?

Some insight to how things worked in Obama's presidential designation of the Chimney Rock national monument in September. It was made with support of the congressional delegations from that state and at their request. The legislative approach through congress stalled when the politics involved included a feature that would have ended the presidential power to create monuments. This is presented as historical perspective and not political hot air. Take it as such.

Full article here: http://www.coloradopols.com/diary/18522 ... ott-tipton
The Durango Herald's Joe Hanel reports at long last:
President Barack Obama will declare Chimney Rock Archaeological Area a national monument Friday, ending an effort that was three years - and a millennium - in the making...
[Sen. Michael] Bennet, Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., wrote a letter to Obama this summer, urging him to consider declaring the monument after their bills stalled amid partisan squabbling in Congress.

Tipton sponsored and passed a bill in the House to establish the monument. It differs from Bennet's by forbidding extra money to be spent on the monument.

Tipton's spokesman, Josh Green, said the congressman would have preferred that Congress acted.

...Tipton's main opponent, Democrat Sal Pace, said the Republican has been a stumbling block for Chimney Rock because he backed a bill that would have taken away the president's sole authority to declare national monuments.

"If it was left in Congressman Tipton's hands, this designation would never occur," Pace said in an email. [Pols emphasis]

Let's be clear about a few things. Rep. Scott Tipton's decision to sign on with Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet in support of an executive declaration for Chimney Rock was important, and helped clear allegations of partisanship from President Barack Obama's path to issuing it. Had the area's representative in Congress not been on board with this declaration, it would have looked much worse politically, a la Bill Clinton and Utah's Escalante National Monument in 1996. Tipton's support has effectively defanged this as an electoral issue against Obama.

However, Tipton's concurrent decision to sponsor legislation stripping the President of the very power he is using to declare Chimney Rock a national monument is pure double-dealing political imbecility. Tipton's not fooling ideological opponents of monument declaration by sponsoring that bill after signing a letter asking Obama for an executive order, and to boosters of Chimney Rock, this legislation insultingly undermines his claims to support them.

In short, this could have been a great opportunity for Tipton to show some real bipartisanship only a few weeks out from the election, but he has at least partly squandered it.

My own comment: This may provide some insight to how this president views support for monument declaration (at least in an election year) and was is in contrast to the way Clinton did it. So I think that letters to congressmen help and so does the same method that pro monument people are using by way of an online petition and individual letters showing opposition to a monument declaration. Both should be helpful.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Don't be deceived by SUWA's fluffy write-ups. They are clearly committed to removing all motorized recreation, even bicycles and ultimately people themselves from the beautiful backcountry.

I don't have any doubts that they might try to get rid of the airstrips. What I'm referring to is the fact that they can't come out and be honest about why they want to ban them. In the Deseret article, they created the ridiculous argument that the strips were drug war highways instead of saying they just wanted them gone because they didn't like them. When they have to be dishonest to make an argument, it might mean they know they can't gain allies or avoid controversy with the real motives.

In the second article, it referred to the airstrips positively because it involved one of their own...not the unwashed rest of us.

If they were made to make an argument based on, for example, 'negative impacts', then they would be forced to describe and characterize the impacts they are talking about, and compare those to the 'positive impacts' that are, frankly, far easier to find voices for regionally.

Now they may be trying a different tactic...to group aviation into the ATV/ORV crowd. I think it'll be important to separate the two, and force the debate to examine real motivations instead of made-up ones.

Here are the only other national monument designations by this president, other than Chimney Rock. Both were former Army bases.

The 14,000-acre Fort Ord National Monument on California's coast.
Fort Ord was still used by the military in the 1990's and I could find no opposition to the designation of monument status.

Fort Monroe National Monument... was, a former Army base in Virginia that was a refuge for slaves during the Civil War.
This quote from coverage of the designation for Fort Monroe indicates he followed the support by people of the state.

"With the strong support of the people of Virginia, from the congressional delegation to Governor McDonnell to Mayor Ward and the citizens of Hampton, President Obama has ensured that this historic fort, a symbol of the long struggle for freedom for African Americans, will be preserved as a national park for generations to come."