Link

02/18/00- Updated 10:14 AM ET

Babbitt unveils land conservation system

DENVER (AP) - Hoping to instill a sense of pride within the Bureau of Land Management, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt unveiled a new land conservation system as part of the Clinton administration's plan to protect more federal lands in the West.

The new National Landscape Monuments system, unveiled Thursday, will be operated by the BLM rather than more traditional agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service.

Babbitt, who has often battled with the BLM over what he considers its pro-mining and logging policies, said the new responsibility will give the agency a purpose that it has lacked. Previously, land that was deemed important was given to the Park Service.

''The nation's largest land management agency ought to be induced to have a sense of pride,'' Babbitt said.

Tina Arapkiles, the Sierra Club's southwest regional representative, praised the announcement, saying it would shift the BLM from its traditional mining and logging mindset.

''He's trying to protect land for the future. And the land that has been traditionally managed by the BLM has been viewed in our country's history as giveaway land or trash land. It's not worth anything but having cows or mines,'' she said.

The land being considered for landscape monument status is already owned by the federal government, though some holdings might be purchased as well. Other uses, such as hunting, will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The areas involved do not have significant mining or other industrial uses.

Some of the sites under consideration are:

In Oregon, Steens Mountain and Soda Mountain.

In Colorado, Canyon of the Ancients, an expansion of the Colorado National Monument and enlarging the Sand Dunes National Monument.

In California, the Santa Rosa Mountains near Palm Springs and Carrizo Plain in the San Joaquin Valley near Santa Barbara.

In Arizona, the Empire Ranch near Tucson.

In Montana, an area along the Missouri River.

''Some of the property I am personally familiar with that he is looking at deserves the protection of monument status irrespective of the agency that manages it,'' said Tom Kiernan of the National Parks Conservation Association in Washington, D.C.

''I do have a fundamental concern that BLM doesn't now have the management policies and staffing and culture to manage these more sensitive lands. It is going to require scientific skills and staffing,'' Kiernan said.

Babbitt said there will have to be changes in the internal workings of the BLM as a result of the new system.

Babbitt said he hoped Congress will act on his suggestions, but President Clinton could declare the land monuments by proclamation.

In 1996, Clinton declared the Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah as a national monument over local protests. Last month, he bestowed national monument status on land around the Grand Canyon.

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 18, 2000

Answers

A bunch of people from our County went up to protest on the Soda Mountain consideration today. (Babbitt was supposed to be in Medford, OR.)

You can't imagine the dirty tricks they have been playing. The propsed landmark is partly in California. I was Chairman of a County Task Force dealing with the Redding, CA BLM for several years on Land Exchanges and Acquistions in the area. They had targeted a private ranch for acquisition near HorseShoe Ranch and were proceeding to land lock it and prevent access to the owner. They were trying to squeeze them into selling.

Anyway, after working with them for years, the World Wildlife Fund in Oregon suddenly targeted the area for inclusion in its landmark. They have even superceded the historic name of a ridge and "renamed it" after a deceased environmental activist who died of AIDS. Immediately, jurisdiction over the California land was transfered to Oregon. Hearings were held in Oregon at a "green" SOSU college campus. Public Comment meetings were "structured" into consensual breakout discussion groups and ranchers and Californians prevented from having their say.

Today, I understand an invitation to our local County Supervisor to attend the Babbitt meeting as a "stakeholder" was rescinded. He wants no representatives from California. A grazing "representative" at the table was hand selected from another County from the Oregon County that this involves. The grazers with allotments on the land have been excluded as "stakeholders." The motorized vehicle users have been excluded as "stakeholders."

It is all about power. We have no illusions that they want a fair discussion. They only want the illusion of one. They have already made up their mind to placate the "greens" politically.

WE DON"T WANT THIS IN SISKIYOU COUNTY! WHY IS THIS BEING FORCED DOWN OUR THROATS? more than 65% of our landbase is controlled by the feds. They want more and more and more control.

We are being pushed and pushed against the wall. This is becoming a war to exterminate rural peoples and their historic lifestyles. God help us all.

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), February 18, 2000.

I believe this is a calculated effort on the part of fedgov to drive people off the land and into the urban areas. The UN has condemned private land ownership (haves vs have-nots) and clinton and crew have long endorsed this. btw, the UN has condemned private ownership of lots of other things too.

best thing to do? know your rights, and exercise them daily. monument status or not, vehicles allowed or not, public land is still public land. use it as often as possible. same with speech, religion, firearms, voting, and so forth.

-- dirtscratcher (stillfarmin@inthecountry.com), February 18, 2000.

None of them are in my state so why should I care? (thats how they get away with it)

-- JB (noway@jose.com), February 18, 2000.

Powder, great title! Hey, did you check the proposed "NAFTA corridors" at amerikanexpose?

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

Powder, check this:

http://www.america-collins.com/biomaps.htm

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 18, 2000.

Pitiful. I hope someday we can reverse this trend of presidents taking away state lands from the states. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening soon. Unless they try too much of this BS in a Patriot heavy state like Idaho...

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 20, 2000.