Post your images of the 27 threatened National Monuments here

There has been a thread about this. But post your images about one or more of the threatened National Monuments to encourage photographers to comment before July 10th (Bears Ears has been extended). You might want to add some comments about your particular images and why you find that monument special.

Details on all the threatened monuments and how to submit comments can be found here:

https://modernhiker.com/how-to-comment-on-trumps-national-monument-review

I'll start.

[ATTACH alt="White Bluffs, Hanford Reach National Monument, Washington state. The Hanford Reach includes the last free flowing section of the Columbia River. Formerly being protected ecologically as part of this country's WWII nuclear reservation, the Hanford Reach is set in a very dry part of the Washington desert and has about 8" of rain a year. It has resident and endemic plants associated with this dry environment, but also wetlands supporting vast species of birds, both aquatic and songbirds and provides habitat in these wet areas for animal life that likely exists in few other places in Eastern Washington."]1663664[/ATTACH]
White Bluffs, Hanford Reach National Monument, Washington state. The Hanford Reach includes the last free flowing section of the Columbia River. Formerly being protected ecologically as part of this country's WWII nuclear reservation, the Hanford Reach is set in a very dry part of the Washington desert and has about 8" of rain a year. It has resident and endemic plants associated with this dry environment, but also wetlands supporting vast species of birds, both aquatic and songbirds and provides habitat in these wet areas for animal life that likely exists in few other places in Eastern Washington.


There are areas of dunes along the edge of the White Bluffs.


The Hanford Reach is great for photography.


This area is among the first to flower in Washington state and among the first to dry out.


As I understand it, the White Bluffs themselves are residue from outwash waters of Pleistocene glaciers and are composed of fine silt and low grade siltstones.


Many songbirds rely on the vegetation adjacent to wetlands and along the river itself. Cedar Waxwings.


Cinnamon Teal in a bay along the Columbia


Hymenopappus filifolius is one of the plants that have little habitat outside of the Hanford Reach National Monument.


White Bluffs Daggerpod is found only in the White Bluffs section of the monument in a very small area. It is globally ranked as Threatened.

I live in the middle of the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Monument in New Mexico, but I don't have any photos from here online at the moment, however I have this photo of Grande Escalante on my new SmugMug account. Every year, my father and I set out from southern NM for a seven day motorcycle trip through the southwest. I'd hate to see these areas gobbled up by private industry and No Trespassing signs.


Grande Escalante, Utah

Gary from Seattle said:

There has been a thread about this. But post your images about one or more of the threatened National Monuments ...

Click to expand...

How are they threatened? A review isn't a threat. It's a review.

sabrina81 said:

Gary from Seattle said:

There has been a thread about this. But post your images about one or more of the threatened National Monuments ...

Click to expand...

How are they threatened? A review isn't a threat. It's a review.

Click to expand...

A review is a threat if the stated intention is to reduce or eliminate any or all of the monuments, plain and simple. The first monument, Bears Ears, has already been reviewed by Zinke and his intended action is to reduce the size and protections of the monument. But I assume you already knew that as well as why Bears Ears is important especially in light of the original intention of the 1906 Antiquities Act. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/interior-secretary-public-lands-utah-bears-ears.html

I assume you also know that in the case of Bears Ears, archaeological structures that have stood for roughly 800 years are very fragile. Searching for oil seismically or fracking within who knows how close an area would certainly threaten those structures. In addition, the other great threat is theft of artifacts which is made much easier by road building in areas near the archaeological sites. But don't take my word for it, here is what Crow Canyon Society has to say about it: http://www.crowcanyon.org/e-newsletter/2016/June/2016_June_Bears_Ears.html

Personally, I get my information from Mark Michel and the Archaeological Conservancy - great organization. http://www.archaeologicalconservancy.org

sabrina81 said:

Gary from Seattle said:

There has been a thread about this. But post your images about one or more of the threatened National Monuments ...

Click to expand...

How are they threatened? A review isn't a threat. It's a review.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are reviewing any possible expansion of the monuments. As far as I can tell, they are only reviewing whether to reduce or eliminate the monuments. I would call that a threat.

kaphinga said:

sabrina81 said:

Gary from Seattle said:

There has been a thread about this. But post your images about one or more of the threatened National Monuments ...

Click to expand...

How are they threatened? A review isn't a threat. It's a review.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are reviewing any possible expansion of the monuments. As far as I can tell, they are only reviewing whether to reduce or eliminate the monuments. I would call that a threat.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that Bear's Ears was designated as a National Monument during the Obama administration and covers 1.35 million acres of land. Since this designation was made by one man with no input from the public nor the state of Utah, it seems reasonable to me to review it. There may be large areas within that 1.35 million acres that should not be restricted. A review would be a good way to find out.

kaphinga said:

SALT LAKE CITY — An indignant Utah Senate voted 22-6 Friday to urge the unraveling of the Bears Ears National Monument designation in San Juan County, bristling at the process used under the Antiquities Act and what they say was indifference to a majority of statewide sentiment.

Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, the Senate sponsor of HCR11, said if a monument designation had been made for the Bears Ears region via congressional legislation subsequently signed by the U.S. president, he wouldn't be arguing against the new monument.

"It's absolutely wrong," the Senate president said, asserting the legislative process was circumvented with one person's pen via presidential proclamation.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a reasonable political question to resolve. I'm for the review.

sabrina81 said:

kaphinga said:

sabrina81 said:

Gary from Seattle said:

There has been a thread about this. But post your images about one or more of the threatened National Monuments ...

Click to expand...

How are they threatened? A review isn't a threat. It's a review.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are reviewing any possible expansion of the monuments. As far as I can tell, they are only reviewing whether to reduce or eliminate the monuments. I would call that a threat.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that Bear's Ears was designated as a National Monument during the Obama administration and covers 1.35 million acres of land. Since this designation was made by one man with no input from the public nor the state of Utah, it seems reasonable to me to review it. There may be large areas within that 1.35 million acres that should not be restricted. A review would be a good way to find out.

Member said:

SALT LAKE CITY — An indignant Utah Senate voted 22-6 Friday to urge the unraveling of the Bears Ears National Monument designation in San Juan County, bristling at the process used under the Antiquities Act and what they say was indifference to a majority of statewide sentiment.

Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, the Senate sponsor of HCR11, said if a monument designation had been made for the Bears Ears region via congressional legislation subsequently signed by the U.S. president, he wouldn't be arguing against the new monument.

"It's absolutely wrong," the Senate president said, asserting the legislative process was circumvented with one person's pen via presidential proclamation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Of course, if truth be known, Sabrina, the Utah delegation had more than 100 years to designate a protected area, so their words are just words. Since you ignore my post showing that "the one man" you cite received strong pressure from both the archaeological community (which you conveniently omitted in your quote - see my post above) and the Native Americans from whom this land was conveniently taken 150 years ago.

Please tell me about any National Monument that was not created by one man......

Utah is quite frankly a backwards state, excepting SLC.

Member said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-to-shed-Bears-Ears-monument-designation.html

Sounds like a reasonable political question to resolve. I'm for the review.

Click to expand...

Gary and all,

I don't think if any Natl Monuments or not very visited National Parks are being "reviewed" means that they will be closed to the public. I would suspect that they may cut back on the staff or close some of these "offices" which may not be a bad idea if the government wants to save money.

Case is point:

Montezuma's Pass, Canyon (or Gorge) south of Sierra Vista AZ. Nice ranger station there was a nice guy there, but no traffic. Drove to the top and many Border Patrol trucks there but I didn't see a real need for staff at the bottom.

There's one other place on our recent trips to SW AZ and S UT/N AZ that I can't remember but it seems like it wasn't that heavily traveled.

Also, a few years ago we were at CO Natl Monument and I don't really remember seeing a ranger there and It's a 22 mile loop from Fruita to Grand Junction CO. No problems there.

Gunnison National ??? in CO. Had an entrance ranger and a "ranger store" farther in. I've been to several in North Carolina and Georgia that have guides or hikes that you buy in a bin on the honor system--- no staff or "store". Even if nobody paid for them, it would probably be cheaper than having a staff.

Don't get me wrong, I love the US NP's but if we're trying to stop bleeding money (spending more than we take in) then there should be some places we could cut in the smaller, less traveled parks.

Kent

KENTGA said:

Gary and all,

I don't think if any Natl Monuments or not very visited National Parks are being "reviewed" means that they will be closed to the public. I would suspect that they may cut back on the staff or close some of these "offices" which may not be a bad idea if the government wants to save money.

Case is point:

Montezuma's Pass, Canyon (or Gorge) south of Sierra Vista AZ. Nice ranger station there was a nice guy there, but no traffic. Drove to the top and many Border Patrol trucks there but I didn't see a real need for staff at the bottom.

There's one other place on our recent trips to SW AZ and S UT/N AZ that I can't remember but it seems like it wasn't that heavily traveled.

Also, a few years ago we were at CO Natl Monument and I don't really remember seeing a ranger there and It's a 22 mile loop from Fruita to Grand Junction CO. No problems there.

Gunnison National ??? in CO. Had an entrance ranger and a "ranger store" farther in. I've been to several in North Carolina and Georgia that have guides or hikes that you buy in a bin on the honor system--- no staff or "store". Even if nobody paid for them, it would probably be cheaper than having a staff.

Don't get me wrong, I love the US NP's but if we're trying to stop bleeding money (spending more than we take in) then there should be some places we could cut in the smaller, less traveled parks.

Kent

Click to expand...

These reviews are not about saving a few bucks, it is about money in "mining and drilling operations" in environmental fragile areas. It's about the money interest of private corporations and in most cases in Utah about the Mormon power influence if you look behind the curtains and get in in touch with locals of both sides. Most of it is driven by greed, nothing else.

The worst thing is, you will only miss it when it is too late...

It has been both a great pleasure and privilege to have been able to visit many of the US National Parks, including some of those on this list.

As a visitor from the UK I wholly endorse the comment already made

"The worst thing is, you will only miss it when it is too late..."

Many of the Parks and Monuments are truly special places and should be enjoyed by all, at least once in a lifetime.

I haven't had time to research the particular National Monuments under review, but some context is appropriate. And yes, I am a lawyer (now retired) and did environmental litigation for 35 years.

National Monuments are designated under the 1906 Antiquities Act. That act was originally motivated by protecting certain Native American areas that were being looted by souvenir collectors, called "pot hunters" at the time. According to numerous Supreme Court rulings since then, the act gives the President "unfettered discretion" to do whatever he wants to designate any particular parcel as a federal National Monument. In numerous cases throughout history it has been used by presidents to override local and state interests, going all the way back to the designation of the "Grand Canyon National Monument" back in 1908. Thus, unlike the designation of national parks, which is a democratic process and requires the assent of Congress, designation of a national monument is designed to allow the president to act when there isn't the congressional or local support to pursue the alternative of creating a national park. Sometimes, such as in the designation of the Grand Canyon, the designation is made to preserve the area pending designation as a National Park. President Obama used the power to designate national monuments 34 times, more than any president in history. Whether that's a good thing or not depends, I suppose, on how you feel about presidential power. (I suspect people who think that the American people are too stupid to govern themselves, such as those who think Utah is a "backwards state," probably like the autocracy inherent in national monument process.)

The monuments under review, at least those in Utah for which we saw some press coverage when we were there in May, were designated under intense local and state opposition. So it's not surprising that a populist administration would find those appropriate for review, essentially giving populist/democratic interests a greater voice in the process. That's particular true in the western states where the federal government owns and controls huge amounts of the states (such as Utah, where the federal government owns about 65% of the state). One can be rightly concerned with an administration that seems to equate business interests with public interest (subscribing to a view, as phrased in Little Orphan Annie, that "what's good for General Bullmoose is good for the U.S.A."), but that's a philosophical discussion not well suited to offhand posts in an online forum.

Skip

Thanks for your reply and explanation. Well put. I had read that the previous administration had a heavy hand in this. I guess that some of the alarmists picture "clear-cutting" and raping the land if mining, etc. is allowed in the NM's. As you stated NM's were started by Teddy Roosevelt as a way around congressional approval.

Don't get me wrong. I love some of the NM's like CO NM and others and Utah and CO are my two favorite states, but I'm not sure that we need 1000's and 1000's of acres in some of these less-frequently visited NM's or have some of them staffed.

Kent

KENTGA said:

Thanks for your reply and explanation. Well put. I had read that the previous administration had a heavy hand in this. I guess that some of the alarmists picture "clear-cutting" and raping the land if mining, etc. is allowed in the NM's. As you stated NM's were started by Teddy Roosevelt as a way around congressional approval.

Don't get me wrong. I love some of the NM's like CO NM and others and Utah and CO are my two favorite states, but I'm not sure that we need 1000's and 1000's of acres in some of these less-frequently visited NM's or have some of them staffed.

Kent

Click to expand...

That is exactly the problem, we think that these large areas are just dedicated for us humans to visits but in reality we need these areas for preservation. The issue is that sanctuaries are actually still to small in order to create and keep natural areas in their original state. All the NPs and NMs are still under the influence of close by activities that influence them via groundwater level changes or pollution. Problems here are invasive species of animals and plants. High visiting areas are in great danger to be invaded due to these visitations by humans. We need buffer zones that lessen the impact of rising water levels of the oceans and crest areas where wildlife can exist. We need these vast areas to keep at least small areas far away from human impact as pristine as possible or we are losing a huge amount of wildlife in all forms and down the road it affects us already.

Dont just look at it with the question in mind "do I want to visit this and look at it?" It's far more than that.

I sure enjoyed the IMAGES throughout this post.

darg said:

KENTGA said:

Thanks for your reply and explanation. Well put. I had read that the previous administration had a heavy hand in this. I guess that some of the alarmists picture "clear-cutting" and raping the land if mining, etc. is allowed in the NM's. As you stated NM's were started by Teddy Roosevelt as a way around congressional approval.

Don't get me wrong. I love some of the NM's like CO NM and others and Utah and CO are my two favorite states, but I'm not sure that we need 1000's and 1000's of acres in some of these less-frequently visited NM's or have some of them staffed.

Kent

Click to expand...

That is exactly the problem, we think that these large areas are just dedicated for us humans to visits but in reality we need these areas for preservation. The issue is that sanctuaries are actually still to small in order to create and keep natural areas in their original state. All the NPs and NMs are still under the influence of close by activities that influence them via groundwater level changes or pollution. Problems here are invasive species of animals and plants. High visiting areas are in great danger to be invaded due to these visitations by humans. We need buffer zones that lessen the impact of rising water levels of the oceans and crest areas where wildlife can exist. We need these vast areas to keep at least small areas far away from human impact as pristine as possible or we are losing a huge amount of wildlife in all forms and down the road it affects us already.

Dont just look at it with the question in mind "do I want to visit this and look at it?" It's far more than that.

--
When in doubt, C4
KJ6EPH

Click to expand...

Well said.

SkipRD said:

I haven't had time to research the particular National Monuments under review, but some context is appropriate. And yes, I am a lawyer (now retired) and did environmental litigation for 35 years.

National Monuments are designated under the 1906 Antiquities Act. That act was originally motivated by protecting certain Native American areas that were being looted by souvenir collectors, called "pot hunters" at the time. According to numerous Supreme Court rulings since then, the act gives the President "unfettered discretion" to do whatever he wants to designate any particular parcel as a federal National Monument.

Click to expand...

And that is precisely the issue in Bears Ears National Monument: Protection of Cultural Resources. The pressure to preserve this land did not come from recreationalists or those dol-garned environmentalists; but rather from Native Americans and the Archaeological community. I doubt you really know much of anything about this monument.

SkipRD said:

In numerous cases throughout history it has been used by presidents to override local and state interests, going all the way back to the designation of the "Grand Canyon National Monument" back in 1908. Thus, unlike the designation of national parks, which is a democratic process and requires the assent of Congress, designation of a national monument is designed to allow the president to act when there isn't the congressional or local support to pursue the alternative of creating a national park. Sometimes, such as in the designation of the Grand Canyon, the designation is made to preserve the area pending designation as a National Park.

Click to expand...

That is true and it resulted in preserving many areas that became our iconic National Parks at a later date when Congress did finally get around to designating those areas as parks.

SkipRD said:

President Obama used the power to designate national monuments 34 times, more than any president in history. Whether that's a good thing or not depends, I suppose, on how you feel about presidential power. (I suspect people who think that the American people are too stupid to govern themselves, such as those who think Utah is a "backwards state," probably like the autocracy inherent in national monument process.)

Click to expand...

I am against the use of Presidential power when it goes against the wishes and welfare of the American people collectively. When Utah became a state it ceded certain rights to the federal government. This argument here is nothing but a red herring.

SkipRD said:

The monuments under review, at least those in Utah for which we saw some press coverage when we were there in May, were designated under intense local and state opposition.

Click to expand...

That is true but you would not find it so in Salt Lake City, for instance, and certainly not from Native Americans who consider this land to be culturally invaluable. The Native Americans have not exactly been given a fair shake by the US government.

SkipRD said:

So it's not surprising that a populist administration would find those appropriate for review, essentially giving populist/democratic interests a greater voice in the process.

Click to expand...

Another red herring. You mean like the Native American groups and archeological community. Again, this did not come from recreationalists. A thread of evidence for what I am saying would come from - How many posts have you seen from photographers? How many hiking threads have you seen on areas within this monument? If you visit these areas within Bears Ears National Monument you will discover there are more cattle (in areas with water), and more hunters than hikers/tourists excepting just one or two rather small areas.

I had the good fortune to visit many areas within what is now Bears Breast National Monument with a friend who as a high school student spent summers helping his brother in Graduate research on the Mayan culture. My friend Carl, showed me areas near Bullfrog rich with arrow heads and dwellings, SE of the Dark Canyon Plateau, he showed me a corrugated pot and Juniper chair hidden under an overhang. We swept our footprints as we left to prevent looters from following us. From Dark Canyon plateau we did a hike and near a dwelling found what was certainly a burial - a pile of mounded dirt about 4-1/2' long with sticks intertwined. In reverence we backed away but swept our footprints. In the Cedar Mesa Carl showed me an incredible ruin that his friend (who has published on Pueblo pot styles) had discovered. Nicknamed the Toolhouse, it appeared to be a workplace. There were still standing three corn grinding stations with Manos and Metates, two painted gourd (rattles?) still half intact, and adjacent a small storehouse. Inside were a Water Olla, broken, but marvelously painted, a corrugated pot repaired with pitch, a basket, remarkably another basket designed to carry an infant or firewood on the back (one of two ever found as evidence of this vast culture of 700AD to the late 1200's), a bundle of arrow shafts, and what my friend recognized as gaming pieces similar to what my friend had observed in Mayan culture. Clearly, I have images, but they are not scanned. We swept our footsteps so looters couldn't follow.

On different occasions, on my own (and in this case as a hiker) I visited some better known areas of rich cultural evidence. In one canyon I discovered a series of small buildings that were on a small ledge above a large cliff. Still adobied, they were painted white with red bricks on the top half and red with white bricks below, to blend with the natural feature. They were invisible from above or below. There was a good deal of corn remaining. In another location we found a fascinating petroglyph in a remote area overlooking the local topography. On the petroglyph there was the exact depiction of the skyline. This was obviously a location where a shaman would mark the solstice in ritualistic efforts to guarantee crops (I'd seen similar elsewhere).

Bears Ears is not about setting land aside, it is about preserving the Cultural Heritage of the Native American Peoples, and it is they, along with the Archaeological community that pressed for it's establishment.

You should read this, you will be better educated on at least one of the 27 National Monuments. : https://www.theatlantic.com/science...as-environmental-legacy-in-two-buttes/511889/

Each National Monument has it's own value and reason for designation and many are to "preserve land - the environment and it's creatures; Bears Ears National Monument and Canyon of the Ancients are clearly to preserve cultural pre-history. The inability of the politically motivated Congress to act resulted in it's designation. It isn't that the the amazing culture hasn't been known for a long time - since the days of Richard Weatherill in the 1880's.

You should visit this area. Grand Gulch near Natural bridges will give out the locations of some cultural examples. You would see why it should be preserved, by Presidential decree, or act of Congress, God willing.

If unable to hike, you should take a tour of Acoma Pueblo or 5th Mesa and Walpi. Perhaps 25 years ago I visited Walpi and spoke to people of many clans. I sat (invited) next to 87 year old Ethel Mahli as we watched a Kachina dance. She described to me (with no pressure on my part) what the dance was about, what her life was like as a youth, how she married a man (with whom she did not get along) from Hano, how in her Grandfather's day they would put a blanket out from a window, and if it did not come back filled with arrows, it was OK to go out, how they farmed, how youth were indoctrinated in the cultural heritage in the Kiva, how chiefs were chosen, and so much more. The cultural heritage of Native Americans in significant in their lives in way that we don't appreciate. Sitting with Ethel Mahli was one of the greatest experiences of my life.

It sounds like you have some excellent arguments. Perhaps you should make them to Congress.

Skip

SkipRD said:

It sounds like you have some excellent arguments. Perhaps you should make them to Congress.

Skip

Click to expand...

Recently "hearings" were held in our vicinity, Pueblo of Abiquiu, New Mexico, in re changing designations by the USFS. The areas under consideration for possible wilderness areas include cultural properties that belong to the Pueblo of Abiquiu.
However, Abiquiu is not recognized, federally, as a "Pueblo."
Much like Zuni, the Indian Agents neglected to make congress aware of its existence as a pueblo, and as shown in "Zuni and the Courts," this neglect led to additional lands going to Zuni Pueblo.
The paper trail, that we've uncovered, about our pueblo, indicates that Federal authorities were well aware that we are an Indian Pueblo as early as James S. Calhoun's tenure as Territorial governor and ex-oficio Indian Superitendent of New Mexico. The federal government neglected to exterminate title to the area and instead opted to buy out private property which had gone to taxes accrued while the area was held as a land grant.
It is with this in mind, that I've asked the USFS, to provide a GAO report, that would compile the record on our pueblo, before they act on any land which would include a possibility that such action should be left up to the decision making process of a sovereign nation.
Is the request for the USFS to produce a GAO Reprt, germane to our considerations?
And, could you drop a few words into this thread that would illustrate, or point to effective courses of action that we could take upon our predicament?

Cheers;

Abiquiuense

I hear what you're saying concerning overspending, but if you really believe that several hundred national park rangers who may not be mandatory are some sort of significant drain on the US budget......

LOL!

This is nothing more than typical republican nonsense - defunding all systems which actually benefit the earth pushing the responsibility off onto states or the private sector.

Touche, Skip.

Kent