Obama to Designate Another National Monument by Executive Order

Did anyone catch this?

Over the heated objections of some local residents, President Obama will sign an executive order Friday afternoon designating nearly 350,000 acres in the San Gabriel Mountains of southern California as a national monument.

Latino groups and environmental organizations in Los Angeles have been pushing for this area to become a National Monument for about 15 years. This made me wonder, why and where exactly. I am not from around there but wondered if anyone had an idea why this piece of land is important to the government. What do they plan on doing down there? Starting a big earthquake by having 100,000 illegals jump up and down in one spot? Or the fact that it borders a famous golf course? Ya, that's right. Below is a thumbnail of the region.

The president’s action will carve out about half of the Angeles National Forest for the special designation, giving the federal Forest Service greater authority to restrict visitors and manage the area. It’s the 13th national monument created by Mr. Obama under a law first used by President Theodore Roosevelt.

“With this designation, President Obama has now protected more than 260 million acres of land and water, nearly three times more than any other president since the Antiquities Act became law in 1906,” the White House said

I used to go to the woods to get away from these babysitter overlords. I now can only enter this area through designated checkpoints with the proper papers and identification. If I am armed or sneezing, I am treated as a potential threat of using violence or carrying disease. Before I have a chance to say anything, I am forcefully incarcerated and told I will be explained everything along the way.

Meanwhile, I told my girlfriend I would be back in a minute. Just takin a wiz...

At least with it being a national monument it can't be raped by some conglomerate for profit. California should have made it a state park.

originally posted by: buster2010
At least with it being a national monument it can't be raped by some conglomerate for profit. California should have made it a state park.

My mind is always looking for another motive especially if an executive order was needed. The location seems unique to me but I'm not quite sure why. Got any ideas?

That's pretty cool. I'll have to check it out the next time I'm in the area.

Thanks for the info!

Hasn't the federal government been selling our landmarks and national parks to the Chinese?

Maybe it's worth more if it's a National Monument, first.

originally posted by: buster2010
At least with it being a national monument it can't be raped by some conglomerate for profit. California should have made it a state park.

They own near half the state already!

CA total area of State
99,822.70

Total Area Owned by State and Federal Gov'ts
42,288.38

% of State's Total Area
42.36%

www.nrcm.org...

This is great news, and if I were Obama (and I may be!) I'd create many more National Monuments and National Parks. Good for him (me?).

originally posted by: buster2010
At least with it being a national monument it can't be raped by some conglomerate for profit. California should have made it a state park.

You're right.

Except that now the only ones that can own, rape or profit from it is the Govt.

A corporation in of itself that doesn't even have to buy the property. All they have to say is "It's ours" then sign a piece of paper to complete the deal.

Peace

Somebody needs to take away his d*&@ pen.

a reply to: eisegesis

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: buster2010
At least with it being a national monument it can't be raped by some conglomerate for profit. California should have made it a state park.

My mind is always looking for another motive especially if an executive order was needed. The location seems unique to me but I'm not quite sure why. Got any ideas?

This is the way it has been done since 1908. And it has a bunch of hiking trails some that were began by native American tribes.

originally posted by: Aleister
This is great news, and if I were Obama (and I may be!) I'd create many more National Monuments and National Parks. Good for him (me?).

But when the government is doing something for our or it's protection, do you always feel that it's in our best interest? In instances where we may have gained, the government has always gained more, never a sacrifice. Don't let them fool you into believing they are doing us any favors.

a reply to: eisegesis

This is an old stomping ground of mine. Many of the areas now designated as a "National Monument" are not monument worthy. Beautiful country though. Hopefully this helps clean up Azusa Canyon (along Rte 39) because after 12pm on Sundays its baby-diapers and trash all through the river (most of the time a stream) and is unbearable.

Some residents had some valid concerns (particularly Mount Baldy) but were since excluded from the area designated. Questions do come into play in county maintained (now Federally controlled) off-road areas, public access that will get more expensive and rules upon rules -- and don't forget one can be barred and held in trespass now in the King's (read Government) forest when the next round of sequestration or budget talks...

a reply to: eisegesis

Forgive my complete ignorance on the subject, but what was the land prior to a National PArk?

Did someone own it?

How can the government just say, "Gimme that" and take land?

originally posted by: kimmie7
Somebody needs to take away his d*&@ pen.

a reply to: eisegesis

You can see it, but you can't touch it.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: eisegesis

Forgive my complete ignorance on the subject, but what was the land prior to a National PArk?

Did someone own it?

How can the government just say, "Gimme that" and take land?

It was a designated already as a National Forest...Angeles National Forest. Designating it as a monument is the next step to funnel monies from the Free People who use the King's (again, read Government's) Forest in order to "maintain" it.

Main difference; Congress can only declare National Parks/Forests....the president can unilaterally declare areas monuments...

originally posted by: ownbestenemy

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: eisegesis

Forgive my complete ignorance on the subject, but what was the land prior to a National PArk?

Did someone own it?

How can the government just say, "Gimme that" and take land?

It was a designated already as a National Forest...Angeles National Forest. Designating it as a monument is the next step to funnel monies from the Free People who use the King's (again, read Government's) Forest in order to "maintain" it.

Main difference; Congress can only declare National Parks/Forests....the president can unilaterally declare areas monuments...

So designating it a Nat'l Monument is a presidential privilege but also a budgetary move?

Thank you for the primer also.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: eisegesis

Forgive my complete ignorance on the subject, but what was the land prior to a National PArk?

Did someone own it?

How can the government just say, "Gimme that" and take land?

I hope this helps...

The area is already part of the Angeles National Forest, but the rules are more lax about what can be done in a national forest than in a national monument.

For example, new roads can be built and new mines created in a national forest. National monument designations honor existing rights but prevent new drilling and mining while ensuring that historically significant objects are protected.

Link

a reply to: eisegesis

Ahhh!

Would hate to find that a huge natural gas deposit or coal or oil had been discovered there.

a reply to: beezzer

I am not sure if it is a budgetary move. A lot of pressure was received by "Latino" groups to designate it as a monument and I believe it could have to do with funding. The pro-argument was that it is littered with graffiti and trash; and some amount of that is true, but not enough (from personal experience) to say it needed to be a monument. The con-argument is what most would suspect, it just gives more control to the Federal Government (BLM and Forestry) along with a monetary boost I would imagine.

The area doesn't have majestic ranges or sweeping beauty to be honest, but it is a nice getaway for locals who want to beat the dreaded summer heat of the valleys in Southern California.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: eisegesis

Ahhh!

Would hate to find that a huge natural gas deposit or coal or oil had been discovered there.

Wait for it....


Peace