24 National Monuments Threatened by Trump's Executive Order

► Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, proclaimed by President Clinton in 1996. (1.7 million acres).
► Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in Arizona, proclaimed by Clinton in 2000 (1 million acres).
► Giant Sequoia National Monument in California, proclaimed by Clinton in 2000 (327,769 acres).
► Vermilion Cliffs National Monument in Arizona, proclaimed by Clinton in 2000 (279,568 acres).
► Hanford Reach National Monument in Washington, proclaimed by Clinton in 2000 (194,450 acres).
► Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado, proclaimed by Clinton in 2000 (175,160 acres).
► Ironwood Forest National Monument in Arizona, proclaimed by Clinton in 2000 (128,917 acres).
► Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona, proclaimed by Clinton in 2001 (486,149 acres).
► Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana, proclaimed by Clinton in 2001 (377,346 acres).

► Carrizo Plain National Monument in California, proclaimed by Clinton in 2001 (204,107 acres).
► Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Pacific Ocean, proclaimed by President George W. Bush in 2006 and expanded by President Barack Obama in 2016, (89.6 million acres).
► Marianas Trench Marine National Monument in the Pacific Ocean, proclaimed by Bush in 2009 (60.9 million acres).
► Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the Pacific Ocean, proclaimed by Bush in 2009 and enlarged by Obama in 2014. (55.6 million acres).
► Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa, proclaimed by Bush in 2009 (8.6 million acres).

► Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico, proclaimed by Obama in 2013. (242,555 acres).
► Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico, proclaimed by Obama in 2014 (496,330 acres).
► Basin and Range National Monument in Nevada, proclaimed by Obama in 2015 (703,585 acres).

► Berryessa Snow Mountain in California, proclaimed by Obama in 2015 (330,780 acres).
► Northeast Canyons & Seamounts Marine National Monument in the Atlantic Ocean, proclaimed by Obama in 2016 (3.1 million acres).
► Mojave Trails National Monument in California, proclaimed by Obama in 2016 (1.6 million acres).
► Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, proclaimed by Obama in 2016 (1.4 million acres).
► Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada, proclaimed by Obama in 2016 (296,937 acres).
► Sand to Snow National Monument in California, proclaimed by Obama in 2016 (154,000 acres).
One other national monument meets the 100,000-acre threshold but was not included on the White House list:

► The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in California, proclaimed by Obama in 2014 (346,177 acres).

>>135391
>>135392
Interesting how so many of these are claimed in the last few years of the presidency.

>>135397
government just trying to make sure they own as much land as possible to make sure citizens don't get their dirty hands on it

>>135411
You know I can't tell if this is ironic or not

Especially after browsing this board

>>135390
He's not threatening national monuments, he's removing authority from the federal government to overstep and seize land for the private citizens

>>135413
>overstep and seize land for the private citizens
>most of the land is a bunch of coral reefs in the pacific ocean that never comes above water
This is the most retarded thing he's done yet I think.

BALLS TO THE WALLS

It takes a special kind of asshole to let businesses shit on the most beautiful natural areas in this country.

The worst part is that it's not like he did this himself. He couldn't have woken up in the morning and said to himself "Yaknow I think I'll give up the all the governmental rights to hundreds of millions of acres of land and open water!". It had to have been some special interest lobbying hard for him to do this. Maybe it could have been one of his Goldman Sachs cabinet friends, or maybe Tillerson the oil baron.

>>135411
National Monument designations are from land already owned by the government. In the west, BLM land typically gets converted.

>>135413
See
>>135425

It sets the land aside because of ecological, geological, or cultural reasons. Bears Ears for instance has a ton of archaeological sites and the local tribes pushed for designation because how important it is to their heritage.

If there's one thing we have enough of in the US, it's land and wide open spaces. Why does development or drilling have to happen right on a national monument? Can mineral extraction companies or developers accept a minor inconvenience and not to irreperable damage to a unique ecological or anthropological site?

ITT people miss the point that 95% of the "land" being talked about is underwater

>>135428
>>135419
ITT: people miss the point that the actual land is obviously the fucking point

>>135428
Ocean ecosystems are even more delicate than surface ones.

>>135428
Fisheries are collapsing all over the world, coral is being bleached out of existence, and the ocean is going sterile.

It needs protection.

>>135390

>8 years since bush administration
>quickly reminded why everyone hates the GOP again

Everyone in this thread is taking an environmental empathy approach, and missing the point that people get fucked over by laws and land seizures all the time.

Empathy nature vs empathy humans/freedom

>>135452
Humans are just one species. We aren't somehow more important.

>>135452
Well it's one thing to scrap the ruling or limit its power in the future. It's another to take land that's already protected, on which nobody lives, and remove it's protected status.

>>135452
>all the time

How about some concrete examples instead of your usual hyperbolic bullshit?

inb4 muh bundies

>>135448
Some Bush era monuments are up for review too. For all the shit people give Bush, he wasnt opposed to setting aside land for preservation.

>>135452
Monuments aren't land seizures, the land is already owned by the government when it gets designated.

It's genuinely reassuring to see so many concerned people on 4chan of all places.

>>135478
And yet, we are

I know one thing for sure if the human race goes we'll be taking the planet with us

Yeah, fuck all of those places. What I'd rather see is yet another fucking strip mine or factory complex where those beautiful one-of-a-kind parks once were!

>>135517
Provide some kind of justification for your position, then.

>>135518
Not really, the planet has experienced much worse catastrophe than we can ever do.
The Great Dying was the worst, it was close to 95% of species going extinct.
Look it up it's a great read.

>>135452
This land is already owned and exists as a monument. If he actually felt sympathy towards land owners then he would simply not add any monuments during his term. Come on man, use your brain.

>>135412
this
>>135391
fuck, these are beautiful places but they'll very rich in natural resources as well

>>135553
We don't need to give up parks for natural resources. We don't really NEED natural resources for that matter.

>>135561
where are the corporations going to make their money then?

>checkm8

>>135452
'If we do not permit the earth to produce beauty and joy, it will in the end not produce food, either.'
- Joseph Wood Krutch

>>135561
We are not at the point where we can be completely independent of natural resources and we never will be. Until replicators or some other pseudoscience bullshit becomes reality, we will always need to follow the law of conservation of matter. Reducing what we need through more efficient practices and selectively preserving the environment through better practices is something we can do now though.
Unless you were suggesting that we can let all of humanity just die out. In that case you are absolutely right.

>>135569
Industrial farms are relatively devoid of either of those and yet produce more food then at any other time in human history. People will always find a way to produce and maintain arable land.

>>135570

I guess I'm just a tree-hugging enviro nut but I tend to think that while economic development is essential, it shouldn't be our only priority.

I think it's important to give consideration to the suffering of all things that can suffer.
And I also think preserving the irreplicable complexity of our natural world is an end in itself.

If I had to choose between there having never been SUV vs. there having never been frogs, even if we assume frogs going extinct will have no impact on any other species's survival, I'll always go with no SUV because we can invent an SUV any day, but as far as frogs or indeed any given species, life is too complex for us to generate from scratch at this stage in our technological development. We're stuck with what we've got, can't hope to make more once it's gone.

>>135570
>Industrial farms are relatively devoid of either of those and yet produce more food then at any other time in human history.

But they still depend on natural ecology and healthy climate systems.

>People will always find a way to produce and maintain arable land.

Not enough land if we have intense desertification. I'm not comfortable just assuming technology will at some point solve a what may turn out to be an existential problem for countless humans.

>>135609
Agreed, but SUVs are a shitty replacement for based fullsize wagons.

>>135613
Vertical farming in greenhouses using soil artificially supplemented with minerals would be able to survive desertification. Not ideal, but manageable. We will need to reassess our priorities and all livestock except chickens will likely be sacrificed due to their enormous energy and land requirements.

>>135609
I agree that we have a duty to try and reduce our impact as much as possible. I just wanted to argue the simplistic quote of the previous poster.

Most of those are just empty land with no actual cool/abnormal formations or history like that in OP. There's one near me that got converted and now I'm pissed because I'm no longer allowed to shoot guns or hunt on that land.

poor arcd

>>135497
I see him get a pretty good rep actually now that he's out, from both sides. After his terms, it was pretty obvious that he was Reagan 2.0 and clearly wasn't the decision maker in the white house. That was a mixture of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

>>135444
Trips is right you guys