BLM director says no plans for National monument in Montana

[Anonymous]

BLM director tells Malta crowd no plans for monument declaration

By the Associated Press missoulian.com | Posted: Thursday,September 16, 2010 9:00 pm MALTA -

The director of the Bureau of Land Management told a packed forum in northeastern Montana that there are no plans for presidential monument declarations in the region, but it did little to ease the fears of ranchers and many others that the federal government may sweep in and bar them from the land.

Bob Abbey acknowledged to the crowd that he cannot rule out future discussions about land protections. However, he promised more than 1,500 people that descended from the area on the small town of Malta for the forum that local comment would be key to any future decisions.

"Folks, there is no plan for a national monument in Montana. I want you to know that," Abbey said. "I want to get the message right out front. There is no proposal for a national monument in Montana."

Ranchers, oil men and others have been very suspicious of federal plans since leaked memos revealed the Obama administration was considering 14 sites in nine states for possible presidential monument declarations. That included 2.5 million acres of northeastern Montana prairie land proposed as a possible bison range.

Also included in the memo were sites in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon and Washington.

Even after Abbey's clarification that no plans are in the works, the large crowd remained unconvinced.

"I know you said you don't have any monument plans, but what does Obama have for plans?" said rancher Nick Schultz of Grass Range.

Many in eastern Montana still harbor bitter feelings over the 2001 creation of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, a Clinton-era move made using the Antiquities Act of 1906 that lets the president unilaterally designate national monuments without approval from Congress.

"The Antiquities Act is a gross abuse of power," said area rancher Vicki Olson to loud applause.

One person out of a long line that took the podium to address Abbey spoke favorably of land protection, a Wilderness Society employee who said the group hopes Thursday's meeting is the start of ongoing dialogue on the issue.

***

Some of the BLM land in the area is leased to ranchers for grazing, while other parcels are sometimes leased to oil and gas use. Some is currently set aside for recreation, hunting and other uses - while some is protected from development.

Locals worried that taking the BLM land out of production would kill rural economies that rely on ranchers and the eastern Montana oil and gas business. Yard signs across town, bumper stickers on cars and billboard all declared opposition to monument designations.

"We do not think economic activity from a monument designation would come anywhere close to the loss of ranching and oil," said David Reinhardt, a Valley County commissioner from nearby Glasgow.

Ever since the initial planning memos were made public earlier this year, Democrats have been unable to dampen fears that sweeping federal land protections are coming.

Earlier in the summer, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack visited the state to emphasize that its land protection initiative would rely on local ideas gathered in a nationwide listening tour. The state's U.S. two senators, both Democrats, have also come out against any notion that the Obama administration should create monuments in the state.

Abbey stressed to the crowd that the planning document that scared everyone is dead, and should not be a worry. "Any decision we make is going to reflect your input and your wisdom," he said.

Rancher Greg Oxarart raised the crowd to a loud ovation by declaring that eastern Montana doesn't want any more land protections, but thinks that Washington D.C. will figure out a way to do it anyway.

"I don't believe this monument deal is dead. You are a smooth talker," Oxarart said. "I don't know if it's something in the air or water or what, but we send perfectly smart people back there and they come up with stupid ideas."

 

[Mike]

I see that no one believes Buckwheat or his minions.

That is a only a natural reaction towards people who can't differentiate between lies and the truth.

Sound familiar? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

I see that no one believes Buckwheat or his minions.

That is a only a natural reaction towards people who can't differentiate between lies and the truth.

Sound familiar? :roll:

Well after Clinton moved to put some of the Missouri Breaks into National Monuments- and then 8 years of a President/Administration that everything they told us turned out false- there is little trust in national politicians (no matter the cult they claim to belong to) and skepticism is to be expected..

But at least now we have had the head of the USDA, Dept of Interior, BLM, and our two US Senators tell us it ain't going to happen...And there is a pretty strong move afoot to have the State Legislature pass legislation making it clear national monument status is unwanted- so at least it would set up a court challenge on states rights....

 

[Mike]

so at least it would set up a court challenge on states rights

I really hate to be the one to inform you, but States Rights have been trumped and thrown out the window bigtime with the lawsuit against Arizona.

No need to worry your fat azz about that anymore. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Yep- and thats a bad one to make a states rights challenge on too- since historically immigration and immigration law has been a federal issue....

 

[pointrider]

Anybody remember the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument deal in Utah about 10 years ago? There was plenty of discussion among ranchers before that one happened (Clinton), except in that case it was just among themselves. The feds really didn't want their opinions.

In some cases ranchers lost hundreds of thousands of dollars that had been paid initially for grazing rights (the ones who resisted the most), and, in the end, the feds came in and used some extreme measures to depopulate cattle when it got close to the deadline including helicopters and nets and even shooting some cattle that were deemed too wild to capture.

Small towns such as Escalante suffered, and hard feelings still endure. I was living in Kanab, Utah at that time and was seeing it all with my own eyes. It was not a pretty site.

 

[leanin' H]

Anybody remember the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument deal in Utah about 10 years ago? There was plenty of discussion among ranchers before that one happened (Clinton), except in that case it was just among themselves. The feds really didn't want their opinions.

In some cases ranchers lost hundreds of thousands of dollars that had been paid initially for grazing rights (the ones who resisted the most), and, in the end, the feds came in and used some extreme measures to depopulate cattle when it got close to the deadline including helicopters and nets and even shooting some cattle that were deemed too wild to capture.

Small towns such as Escalante suffered, and hard feelings still endure. I was living in Kanab, Utah at that time and was seeing it all with my own eyes. It was not a pretty site.

I remember it well and know folks who were basically destroyed by it. Logging ceased, mining ceased and grazing was ruined by the stroke of the pen. Just remember you Montanan's...... every time they give a coach a vote of confidence they usually end up firing him! :shock: As the Democrats start to see and experience huge losses this fall, don't be suprised if they don't reach out to thier radical left side in a last ditch effort to keep power on thier side of the isle, and do exactly something like this Monument to show them they need thier support. Or they may just do it on the way out the door cause they can! Either way, if the BLM cheif says it aint gonna happen, I'd start to worry a lot more than you are now! If they wanted your opinion or valued it at all, we'd have immigration reform or a hundred other things that "we the people" want but the politicians know what's better for us! :roll:

 

[Mike]

Yep- and thats a bad one to make a states rights challenge on too- since historically immigration and immigration law has been a federal issue....

You do know that more Illegal Immigration arrests are made by "State" authorities than by ICE. Many more, and have been for a long time.

It's a brand new world now with immigration because the Feds are stripping the States authority to make arrests now. Like they did Joe Arpaio........ He can arrest them only under State Law now. :roll:

When the Feds quit doing their job, as they recently have, the states must fill their shoes.

It will be a great case for SCOTUS to rule on. Guess who Sotomayer and Kagan will rule for? :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Yep- and thats a bad one to make a states rights challenge on too- since historically immigration and immigration law has been a federal issue....

You do know that more Illegal Immigration arrests are made by "State" authorities than by ICE. Many more, and have been for a long time.

It's a brand new world now with immigration because the Feds are stripping the States authority to make arrests now. Like they did Joe Arpaio........ He can arrest them only under State Law now. :roll:

When the Feds quit doing their job, as they recently have, the states must fill their shoes.

It will be a great case for SCOTUS to rule on. Guess who Sotomayer and Kagan will rule for? :lol: :lol:

Always been that way- anyway from 1971 to 1999 that I was in law enforcement....You had to call a federal officer/immigration officer to make an immigration arrest... Unless they authorized detention-or you had state or local charges to hold them on- you had to release them... And that was done quite often when no border patrol were available-or when they had ran out of money in their budget and had no transportation money..

The cross training/deputization of some state and local officers to handle illegal immigrants came into effect post 9/11....

 

[Anonymous]

Sept. 21, 2010

Group Opposes BLM Plan to Acquire, Control Additional Land to Restrict or Eliminate Grazing

Billings, Mont. – At a meeting in Malta, Mont., on Thurs., Sept. 16, 2010, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Robert Abbey acknowledged he authored a leaked memo that indicates BLM is considering the proposed creation of a 2.5 million acre bison range/preserve that would include Montana and eight other states and that would extend to and adjoin Canada.

R-CALF USA sent a letter to Abbey on Fri., Sept. 16, 2010, that states the group steadfastly opposes "this or any other proposal by the federal government to remove lands from production that are suitable for, and that have historically been used for, livestock grazing. This steadfast opposition is extended to include any action by the federal government to acquire or otherwise control land under the Treasured Landscape Initiative or by the creation of national monument under the Antiquities Act.

"The acquisition or control of land suitable for grazing and other agricultural endeavors by the federal government conflicts directly with the stated goals of President Barrack Obama and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, both of whom have indicated a desire to restore the economic foundations in Rural America," the letter continues.

"The removal of productive land from production that continues to be properly cared for and managed by private landowners and by private individuals who graze federally-controlled lands would further exacerbate the ongoing erosion of economic opportunities in Rural America.

Such removal would adversely impact both U.S. livestock producers and the myriad of related, rural businesses whose solvency depends on a critical mass of livestock producers operating in their marketing r egion. "Not only has Rural America been decimated by an evaporation of economic opportunities for U.S. livestock producers – resulting in their exodus – but also, the nation's food security is now at risk…

If the federal government is serious about maintaining an adequate, domestic food production system to guarantee for the citizens of the United States domestic food security, then the federal government must, at a minimum, immediately cease any further actions that would effectively remove any additional land from production, either by acquiring private land or restricting the use of land currently controlled by the federal government.

"Attempting to acquire or control additional land for the purpose of limiting or prohibiting livestock grazing is irresponsible and, in our view, a violation of the sanctity of private ownership and private property rights protected by our Constitution.

"R-CALF USA respectfully urges you to forego any plans to amass any additional, federally-controlled lands and to, instead, begin working on a national strategy to foster an economic climate that restores economic opportunities for U.S. livestock producers so the United States can begin rebuilding its depleted cattle herd," the letter concludes. "Importantly, the federal government must, as a guiding principle associated with such a national strategy, provide full and complete protection to each of its citizens' private property rights."

 

[Mike]

I see that no one believes Buckwheat or his minions.

That is a only a natural reaction towards people who can't differentiate between lies and the truth.

Sound familiar? :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[loomixguy]

In the words of a member here, some Feds are "taking a four year vacation" since TWAP was inaugurated. ICE, DOJ, etc., etc.

 

[Anonymous]

In the words of a member here, some Feds are "taking a four year vacation" since TWAP was inaugurated. ICE, DOJ, etc., etc.

You must have forgot the Bush in the Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amnesty bill :???:

 

[Mike]

In the words of a member here, some Feds are "taking a four year vacation" since TWAP was inaugurated. ICE, DOJ, etc., etc.

You must have forgot the Bush in the Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amnesty bill :???:

And you must have never read it. :roll: I'll clue you in from memory.

It had provisions for 20,000 more border patrol officers, and terribly stringent border security provisions. It also had a "Path" for citizenship. Not "Automatic" citizenship. No "family reunification" plan and the list goes on.

NOT what you'll get with the Dems writing an immigration BIll.

You trying for the idiot of the year award? Keep it up, you'll win hands down.

 

[Anonymous]

In the words of a member here, some Feds are "taking a four year vacation" since TWAP was inaugurated. ICE, DOJ, etc., etc.

You must have forgot the Bush in the Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amnesty bill :???:

And you must have never read it. :roll: I'll clue you in from memory.

It had provisions for 20,000 more border patrol officers, and terribly stringent border security provisions. It also had a "Path" for citizenship. Not "Automatic" citizenship. No "family reunification" plan and the list goes on.

NOT what you'll get with the Dems writing an immigration BIll.

You trying for the idiot of the year award? Keep it up, you'll win hands down.

So if it was such a great law-- why did the whole country- and most of Congress (including my whole states delegation- R's and D's) turn against it.... :???:

 

[Mike]

You must have forgot the Bush in the Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amnesty bill :???:

And you must have never read it. :roll: I'll clue you in from memory.

It had provisions for 20,000 more border patrol officers, and terribly stringent border security provisions. It also had a "Path" for citizenship. Not "Automatic" citizenship. No "family reunification" plan and the list goes on.

NOT what you'll get with the Dems writing an immigration BIll.

You trying for the idiot of the year award? Keep it up, you'll win hands down.

So if it was such a great law-- why did the whole country- and most of Congress (including my whole states delegation- R's and D's) turn against it.... :???:

Can you show me where I said it was a great law?

The R's were against it because because of the vast numbers of immigrants that came here illegally could possibly become citizens, and the D's turned against it because it was too tough on them and they might not get enough of their votes. Plus, they were against the $2,000.00 fine to pay for naturalization.

Two completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

By the way, you won. :roll: