Citing ‘Inexcusable’ Treatment, Advisers Quit National Parks Panel – The New York Times

My understanding is that federal land that is designated “monument status” is closed to extraction of natural resources.  Reducing federal land protection with monument designation of this scale (two million acres) is abominable.

Is it oil, minerals or a combination of that and other uses (housing, golf courses) that propel this change?

The resignation of the National Parks Panel brings public awareness to the exploitation of natural resources.

I read the other day in The New York Times that some political awareness group of the left or center-left has a group of 180,000 or so individuals that will go to a protest site to demonstrate.  The protests were of issues NOT dealing with land use, monuments, federal land protection.

I would sign on to protest issues dealing with saving forests, rivers, land from corporate exploitation.  I would pay my own way anywhere in the United States to protest the exploitation as demonstrated in this article.

The advisory panel has shown light on the problem with the Trump administration’s land policies.

Sitting Bull often walked barefoot on the earth at dawn in the morning.

“And in December, the administration reduced the size of two national monuments in Utah, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, by some two million acres, the largest rollback of federal land protection in the nation’s history.”

Advertisements

Comments Off on Citing ‘Inexcusable’ Treatment, Advisers Quit National Parks Panel – The New York Times

Filed under Life Out of Balance

Comments are closed.