By Rob Adams
Mayor of Sedona 2008 – 2014
(August 27, 2015)
Here we go again……..
The controversy over the Red Rock National Monument is reminiscent of numerous other hot topics that have surfaced in Sedona over the years. Who can forget the heated discussions in our community over the roundabouts on SR 179, the alternate routes, the Dark Sky designation or the continuous roadway lighting? In each case many people took a side on the issue and became intractable in their viewpoint before they were fully educated on the facts. In order to understand why we are having this discussion, I will provide some of the history of this controversy.
Approximately two years ago the City of Sedona requested that the organization, Keep Sedona Beautiful, take a lead role in researching strategies such as a National Scenic Area or a National Monument that would address how our communities could participate in the preservation and management of the National Forest that surrounds the Greater Sedona Area. The National Monument designation was determined to be preferable because of the complex political bureaucracy that is involved with a National Scenic Area designation.
Of particular concern to the City of Sedona are the repeated attempts by our State Legislature to take control of Federal lands. The consequences of such an action are unknown, but it appears that the legislators that support this idea (including the Senator for our district, Sylvia Allen) would like to open our forestlands for mining and other exploitation. A National Monument designation would likely be excluded from any National Forest acquisitions by a State.
Additionally, the Forest Service is understaffed, underfunded and unable to effectively manage our National Forests and Park Lands. The National Monument emerged as a possible strategy or vehicle that could enable the designated area to be eligible for grants or funding that national forests are not eligible for.
A KSB committee was formed and spent over a year researching the pros and cons of National Monuments throughout the country. It is important to understand that you cannot compare apples to apples regarding a National Monument designation. Each designation is specific to the area that it encompasses. The wording that has emerged for our Red Rock National Monument is meant to be simple and specifically encompass many of the concerns about property and water rights, roads, utilities and public usage of our forestlands. The document is a work in process. The public input that is being collected by KSB will be used to prepare a final document that will be presented to the Executive Branch of the Federal government, pending public support.
During the public meeting that have been scheduled and are ongoing, there have been many questions regarding the proposed National Monument. Will it create another layer of government in the management of our public lands? Will it affect private water, property and easement rights? Will it cause an additional influx of visitors to our area? If you Google Red Rock National Monument, most of these questions have been answered, either directly or within the text of the proposed Monument language.
As has been the case in other controversies that have occurred in our community, there is a lot of misinformation that has been circulating. I suggest that you consider the source of your information before you use it in your decision making process. Is the source a special interest person/organization? Is your source representing the public welfare or a private agenda? Where did they get their information? Peel back the layers of the onion to get to the truth.
According to the 2014 Community Plan Update, the protection and preservation of our natural environment is the top priority for the citizens of Sedona. A National Monument designation may be one of the tools that we can use to achieve this goal. I applaud Keep Sedona Beautiful for the countless hours that they have devoted to researching and formulating a National Monument proposal. We owe them a debt of gratitude for taking action. Taking no action to “Preserve the Wonder” is unacceptable.
This is an advertisement
55 Comments
@Rob Adams,
Rob, your statement “Of particular concern to the City of Sedona are the repeated attempts by our State Legislature to take control of Federal lands. The consequences of such an action are UNKNOWN, but it APPEARS that the legislators that support this idea (including the Senator for our district, Sylvia Allen) would like to open our forestlands for mining and other exploitation” is uncorroborated and problematic in many ways, to say the least, and you know it.
First, you speak of the particular concerns of the City of Sedona as if your administration was, indeed, the City of Sedona. It was not. The people who live and work here are the City. Secondly, the population here is well under 10,000 while the Verde Valley population that will be affected by the proposed National Monument is nearer 80,000. What makes you think you’re entitled to speak for all of them? Third, since I have proven, in my many currently published articles at the Sedona Eye on this subject, that federal stewardship, under the aggregate of land and natural resources federal management agencies charged with the responsibility of preserving entrusted national assets, has been abysmal for 40 years. Meanwhile, your Marxist Utopian statement evidences a complete disregard for not only Constitutional state’s rights and the Tenth Amendment and the long-time families who’ve made this great state what it is, but it also evidences, in the course of your promotion of the subject National Monument designation, your tendency, while Mayor, to use unfounded scare tactics.
You’ve done it here in your Letter to the Editor as a result of implying that all western states are careless stewards driven by greed instead of good will. Who anointed you the supreme deity? You’re not our Mayor anymore, or have you not realized that yet? Notwithstanding, your concern for our collective well-being seems strange coming from a former Mayor who would never permit, for his town, the immense benefits of competitive bidding for City destination traveler marketing and left us, instead, with a mountain of debt and a $2.3 million dollar Wetlands Preserve boondoggle that hasn’t met a single promised tourism or environmental objective such as delimiting the risk of toxic downstream ground water releases that could be caused by the failure of any of ten injection wells.
Rob, if you can get past your view of yourself as a Sedona legacy and beloved leader and read my articles you’ll find I have a powerful activist following that is opposed to your unfounded National Monument designation argument. And, my following extends far beyond the City limits. In fact, my only “KSB-friendly” critics in the blog rolls at the Eye, relative to this National Monument issue, NEVER come up with any facts to disprove my fact-supported arguments against it, nor points of authority such as Congressional reports as I do, nor official links to educated opposition, recitation of expert witness opinions, legal opinions, or GUARANTEES of federal agencies as to performance standards promised by KSB. I always document my arguments, one way or the other.
While you and KSB can’t even get a single federal agency spokesman to step forward in your behalf, I’m going to bring some of the most powerful expert speakers in the country here to address the subject of catastrophic federal land and resources management incompetence and the true political motivations for it that have nothing to do with environmental stewardship. I will expect you to be present. Moreover, why don’t you think about debating me publicly on this issue since I’m still noted as a featured writer at this Sedona.biz site? You won’t be able to use abuse of power to throttle me this time, though! But, if you should dare, I would suggest that you first read my thoroughly researched and documented articles…all three of them, PLUS all the blog comments. They’re all front-page posted right now at http://sedonaeye.com/damn-all-of-you-who-want-all-the-facts/, http://sedonaeye.com/is-there-a-national-monument-designation-downside-part-ii/, and http://sedonaeye.com/is-there-a-national-monument-designation-downside/.
JRN
I see you are off your medication again, Rick
Rob
Snarky remark from our elected representative only shows that you, Rob Adams, have lost touch with your base. Un flipping believable!
@Rob Adams
Maybe you’d like to say that to my face at the gym, Rob. As I said…if you dare!
JRN
@Rob Adams
http://sedonaeye.com/damn-all-of-you-who-want-all-the-facts/
I think you better go to this link and find out what prominent people around the Verde Valley now think of you. Your chances of another elective office are shrinking fast. BTW, as you were walking into Harkins late this afternoon, you passed right in front of SNAP’s front door where I was standing and waving at you and knocking on the door, too. How come you tried to pretend you didn’t see me?
JRN
I find it interesting that Keep Sedona Beautiful is resorting to an act of Congress dated in 1906 that was specifically designed to protect antiquities with the minimum amount of land needed. I guess interesting is probably the wrong word, ‘typical’ would be a better choice of words. If you have never read the Act as amended, my suggestion is to go to our website and read it, or just google it. Unlike most of the ridiculous pieces of legislation that have been passed recently, this one is only a page and a half and anyone with an eighth grade education can read it and understand it.
Keep Sedona beautiful seems to think this is all about Sedona. How arrogant. This one hundred and sixty thousand acres affects the entire Verde Valley, over 80,000 people not to mention the population of Flagstaff. Where is their input? What are their thoughts? Do they know about restricted access of a national monument when controlled by the Department of Interior? Are they aware that the federal government has the authority as proven by case law to come on private property that borders a national monument and pretty much dictate how you use that private property when it interacts with the National Monument? Are the citizens of Sedona or the other towns in the Verde Valley going to accept this verified over reach of the federal government? This is not a question for debate, this is a statement of fact.
Are the people in the Verde Valley going to accept the fact that a national monument designation has a monitoring system developed by the Department of Homeland Security as all national monuments are considered a higher risk of terrorist attacks? Are the people of KSB and Sierra Club, willing to put people at risk in Sedona and the Verde Valley because of a national monument designation? We have people that are running around half-cocked, making statements that are simply not true, making promises about trolley cars, parking lots, and some magical money that is going to pour into our Verde Valley. I think it’s about time the pipe dreams stop.
Increasing tourist traffic in our town that is already flooded by having a national monument designation pop up on every search engine on the planet is probably not the smartest idea in the world. Over the next several weeks we will hear from the other 80000 people that are located in the Verde Valley, this is not a Sedona issue. Keep Sedona beautiful may think it is, that 160000 acres of National Forest and other preserve areas with fingers of the National Forest penetrating Sedona in various areas is not something that the residents are really going to want when they realize the aggressiveness, and the open potential threats, that this designation will bring.
You need to read a little deeper.
http://Www.arizonaliberty.us
@Rob Adams, and his cohorts at KSB, the Sierra Club, the Monument Workgroup, Sedona.biz, and the current City Council proponents of the SVVRRNM designation:
I would suggest, that in the interests of fairness, fair reporting, true environmentalism, truthful advertising and marketing, that you publish the following as a fair offsett to your current SVVRRNM handouts, with bullet points, entitled “Honoring the Past…Preserving the Future,” as follows:
*Keep Sedona Beautiful (KSB), The Sierra Club, several City of Sedona City Councilors and its Mayor, several former Councilors and Mayor, all endemic to the City of Sedona, are all allies called to action by the CITY of SEDONA MONUMENT WORKGROUP, who have the intent of forcing the SVVRRNM designation upon the entirety of the Verde Valley, its environs which include parts of the Flagstaff area along I-17 and the Village of Oak Creek, as well as the cities of Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale and Jerome. This is a case of a few dozen people attempting to force their will on better than 80,000 people without input from any of you.
*There is no difference between the federal land and natural resources oversight and management capabilities of one federal agency and another.
*The KSB Handout and RRN ad both state that the USFS will manage the SVVRRNM. They only manage 9 out 117 U.S. National Monuments and they will not provide an absolute GUARANTEE that they will be the perpetual Monument management agency. What’s worse, if that statement is true, then what will change with a National Monument designation unless the National Park Service is the manager?
*There is no absolute GUARANTEE that the SVVRRNM designation will prevent the transfer of its initial federal management agency to another after it is created.
*The track-record of federal land and resources stewardship needs only to be looked at under the microscopic view of the recent ecological disasters of Durango, Colorado, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire in ARIZONA (the most destructive wildfire in American history), and the utter destruction of ARIZONA’s Organ Pipe National Monument.
*The SVVRRNM designation will create a federal choke-hold on the regional economy of the Verde Valley by virtue of publishing onerous access and use rules to be applied, at agency will, to visitors who must buy permits at, as of yet, unknown cost.
*The SVVRRMM designation, subject to an emergency declaration of the federal government could create a threat to local self-governance by virtue of the imposition in the VERDE VALLEY of the U.S. Constitution Property Clause (Supreme Court upheld) “Inholding rule.” See http://sedonaeye.com/damn-all-of-you-who-want-all-the-facts/
*Current usage rights of the proposed area of the SVVRRNM designation by locals will be severely curtailed from what we have now. KSB says, thought, that the designation will prevent vandalism to Monuments antiquities. Yes, the feds have demonstrated their competency in that regard relative to prevention of Mexican drug cartel physical control of ARIZONA’s Organ Pipe National Monument.
*The SVVRRNM designation proposal assures no protections to locals against extreme unaddressed permit fees.
*The ecology of U.S. National Parks and Monuments bordering Mexico has been literally trampled and is severely at risk from the illegal aliens coming into the U.S. who enter through those parks (such as ARIZONA’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument). The Sierra Club, partner of KSB, responded to this threat, not by supporting the border fence, but by filing lawsuits against the fence claiming it would disrupt animal habitats when, in fact, the flood of illegal aliens already had already disrupted those animal habitats. See http://www.desertinvasion.us/
*The Sierra Club’s opposition TO JUST THE FEAR of logging, including any selective logging at all, on public lands has caused an excessive fuel buildup in forests and wildlands. This was the reason for the severity of ARIZONA’s massive Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002 which became the most destructive, by far, in U.S. history. While periodic fires are a natural part of the ecology and most forest and grassland types are dependent on fire to one degree or another, the fires resulting from excessive fuel buildup are neither natural nor environmentally benign but are extraordinarily dangerous.
*The National Forest Service, which KSB SVVRRNM promotional literature says will manage our proposed National Monument, is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Meanwhile, the Africanized Honey Bee, aka “Killer Bee,” has migrated into the U.S. while the USDA was supposed to find ways to prevent that from happening. ARIZONA is the only state in the union that is now 100% infested with this ecological disaster. We have them in the Verde Valley as a result of federal land stewardship. See, at the USDA government website “Honey Bee Research : Africanized Honey Bees”
JRN (screen captured for posterity)
Rob Adams has the right idea. I grew up in Sedona and believe we should preserve all the spectacular land at any cost. The letters above are a little shocking in the nastiness. I would suggest no name calling. And equating the Sierra Club with something bad is not productive either. Rob is correct that the Forest Service is not notable for protecting land. The suggestions of Keep Sedona Beautiful should be prioritized and we should all do all we can to preserve for posterity this wonderful gift of the Red Rocks.
” we should preserve all the spectacular land at any cost”
Be careful of what you wish for. This designation could mean that you’ll only be able to hike when the trolley is running, you won’t be able to improve your land because large trucks won’t be able to roll down the street, you’ll have to pay to play in your own backyard, and those who currently have rights to water will lose those rights.
Don’t be a “not-see.” The rules governing a National Monument can only be compared to living in Nazi Germany.
As far as the letters above, the evidence is over-whelming that having a city as the center of a National Monument is not a good idea. Having a few City Council members and KSB decide what’s best for the entire population of the Verde Valley is not a good idea. The subject of a National Monument is like a weird Watergate, meaning that a few people in city government know what’s REALLY going on, the rest of us are in the dark. None of the arguments made against obvious conclusions stand up to scrutiny.
The problem is NOT that there is not enough evidence to justify all the conclusions against a NM; but that most people, especially the noisy negativists, are unaware of the Orwellian lifestyle the monument will create.
Anytime anyone against the NM posts, they get one of 4 main responses:
1. What the public doesn’t know, we certainly won’t tell them. Yes, turnout has been good for the NM meetings – what you’re not being told is that the majority showing up to these meetings are against the designation. We are also NOT told about the obvious downside – thanks to Rick, now we know.
2. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. Most people are only thinking “sounds good, sign me up!” without looking at the side effects of a NM in the Verde Valley.
3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier. (See Rob Adam’s first response above.)
4. Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway. (See D. Warren’s response. What would happen to Verde Valley School if the National Designation said you couldn’t build anymore classrooms/dorms or make any improvements to the existing buildings? You better look into what happened to buildings in the NM in Colorado.)
When in doubt, don’t.
Let’s table this National Monument designation and get back to the REAL issues in Sedona = traffic, high costs of living, low wages, non-sustainable living, water and sewer issues, and the preservation of a peaceful life. NO one is out to destroy the Red Rocks and the USFS and volunteers have not let us down in their stewardship of the land. We are also protected by Amendment 12, which makes the NM redundant anyway.
Good comments Rob.
I agree with Rob, it is a game of “Who Do You Trust” the state government or the federal government.
The federal government is guaranteed to move slow or not at all,
And as far as the state government, just look what they have done to our school system,
I pick the feds.
Steve Segner
“I pick the feds.”
Good. USFS = United States Forest Service, a Federal agency. i agree with Darryl = they’ve done a decent job so far and our sacred red rocks are under the protection of Amendment 12.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Gerald R. Ford
“The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.”
Milton Friedman
“The land is sacred. These words are at the core of your being. The land is our mother, the rivers our blood. Take our land away and we die.” – Mary Brave Bird, Lakota
Thank you Rob. Thank you Deryn. When we take the time to view both the history and timeline for this initiative process it is easier to delve deeper and do fact checking on points being made by the opposition. Ask those questions and have them answered. The process is on going. Join in. Attacks are not questions, nor do they offer constructive criticism. There are and will be lots of fear generating side topics (killer bees!, unknown unknowns!) that will be pulled forth. Shine the light of an open mind on this.
I hope all are keeping an open mind and think about how, since 9/11 our lives have changed – and these changes are incongruous to the values I have grown up with. It seems that the only difference between the National Monument and Amendment 12 is that there will be harsher rules about what will and what will NOT be allowed. The National Monument designation adds another layer of rules, regulations and fees in order to “protect” the red rock. Outside a few vandals, I really don’t see where there is a big problem. A new NM designation won’t stop vandals from vandalizing because that’s what vandals do. But what the NM designation WILL do is restrict us from the land and beauty that is our home. Residents of a NM area have given us fair warning and we should take heed rather than rush head-long into a “solution” where there are currently NO problems. They say that things won’t change, and since recent government statements prove that what ever they say, the opposite is true is another red flag. What about dogs? I love taking my big guy on an early morning walk in the neighborhood – but when I visited a National Monument in Colorado a couple of months ago, my dog wasn’t allowed. The more I look into the hollow promise of “nothing will change” the more I know that that isn’t true.
We’re also promised magic money, shiny new shuttles, and a staff for it all – well, who’s going to pay for all this when we can’t even pay our teachers a decent wage, there’s no money for education, the health care system is at a breaking point, roads and bridges need repair, as well as a long list of other things that have been put on the back burner due to the rapidly deteriorating Arizona economy. This designation will only bring more bureaucracy and ultimately limit access to our favorite hikes and private property. Do you not remember how, when the government said they were out of money, all the tourist flocked to Sedona because the National parks (Grand Canyon) and National Monuments (Montezuma’s Castle) was closed? It was a terrible day for all Americans, but it was a boon to uptown and hotel business. Would you like to add Sedona to that list of places they’ll close the next time the budget is stretched?
This basic question has NOT been answered: How will a National Monument better protect Sedona, the Verde Valley and the surrounding forest and wilderness areas?
@J. Rick Normand
Help us understand the relationship of this to Agenda 21 and the UN.
I had originally heard from people that I highly trust to usually be dead accurate in their research and understanding of issues like this that this transfer from National Forest to National Monument was a threat to our water rights and was all a part of Agenda 21.
I haven’t had time to investigate this thoroughly, but I was assuming you were on the side of being fully awake to the global agenda to control water rights and natural resources by the UN.
That said, it sounds like in your article in the Sedona Eye you are saying that by moving our distinction from National Forest to National Monument there is some either intended or unintended consequences of that further expanding their jurisdiction and control of what the feds can do regarding private and state land in close proximity to the National Monument.
If thats the case, the federal government could by default make arrangements with the UN to protect water and impose that both on the state and private parties, therefore infringing on our water rights.
This is my greatest concern. Trying to think this thing through 10 steps ahead. Can you please help me connect some dots here.
@Brian, @Darryl Z and @J.J,
Please let me introduce you to Rosa Koire, one of the greatest experts in our country on the subject of United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. Ironically, she is a liberal Democrat who has dedicated her life to fighting UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. KSB is a UN Agenda 21 activist organization. Please watch and listen to these videos carefully, let her connect the dots for you, then form your own opinions. BTW, I have contacted her and invited here to come to Sedona and speaking publicly. She has agreed.~Rick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K6CACOGdEM
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8
For Steve Segner, Deyren Warren and others who blindly agree with Rob, I suggest you do some research to see how this NM designation will affect not only your rights but also your property values. Start your research by contacting the people in Colorado who have been affected by the recently formed NM in that state.
@Dale Casey,
Here’s some good news for you and the intelligent opposition to the proposed SVVRRNM.
Congressperson Ann Kirkpatrick, at the urging of KSB, the Sierra Club, the nefarious Monument Workgroup, several sitting members of Sedona’s City Council and the proponents of the SVVRRNM are pushing to fast-track the NM designation by asking President Obama to sign an Executive Order to so order it. These NM proponents would like for you to believe that, if and when the President signs the EO, that the NM will become an irreversible matter of law. THIS IS UTTERLY FALSE YET INTENTIONALLY CONVEYED TO ALL OF YOU AS TRUTH! The NM, if designated by virtue of a Presidential EO, can and probably will be reversed by federal Court action, or in the next Congress, or by the State of Arizona under the Tenth Amendment, as follows:
First, US courts may overturn Executive Orders and have often done so in the past.
Second, Congress may overturn an Executive Order by passing legislation in conflict with the order OR by refusing to approve FUNDING to enforce it.
Third, should the President veto the legislation, Congress could overturn the veto with a 2/3rds majority vote (BTW, rapidly growing opposition to federal land grabs is BIPARTISAN).
and,
Fourth, subject to the Tenth Amendment, the various state legislatures can nullify federal law that they deem unconstitutional. No federal court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has ever overturned this right of the states to Tenth Amendment nullification. Arizona and a majority of states, as a matter of fact, have already done this over several federal law issues. My next article here at The Eye will address the workings of the Tenth Amendment and its Nullification Clause. See the link below:
@Dale Casey,
Oops, I meant to say that I will be publishing my next article on the subject of Nullification of the NM designation by Presidential Executive Order at http://www.sedonaeye.com, not here at Sedona.biz.
JRN
Rob – you say to consider the source of the information and where it’s coming from and if there’s a hidden agenda / special interest behind it.
OK, I’m considering the source – that’s you. What’s YOUR special interest and why are YOU spreading disinfo about the National Monument? Why do YOU so badly want a NM here when it will bring lower property values and more bureaucracy to the Verde Valley?
Hello Rick – Thanks, I’ve met Rosa Koire at a conference in California a couple of years back. She gave a talk about her book, Behind the Green Mask, which is an eye-opening account of the biggest public relations scam presented by the UN. I suggest everyone take a look at the links Rick provided.
Dale, I do not blindly agree with anyone, but Rob made some good points.
For some of us it is not all about the money or property values.
The Federal Government is not the enemy, greed is.
When people say government” Gets in the way”, what they really mean is it get in the way of them making MORE money.
Some people in this town live in a world of fear, and worrying about things like “UN Agenda 21”, to them the sky is allway falling and Sedona is always on the verge of going bankrupt,
Be very careful of the “facts” they use.
Steve
Ooooh! SOMEONE has forgotten about that federal government shutdown that happened a couple of years ago. How many THOUSANDS were turned away from National Parks and Monuments because the feds ran short of funds? How many hotels and concessionnaires were closed within the Grand Canyon which sent tourist scurrying to Sedona ? You’re IN FAVOR of letting the feds shut Sedona down when they can’t pay their bills? Awesome.
Step one: create problem.
Step two: complain about problem
rinse, repeat.
You’re likely PROUD of this as well, ss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7d5QoAmlRE
Sorry, that was link was incorrect. I meant to post this for the proud american who wants a NM in Sedona:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W71Kbr3cfLQ
@steve Segner
This is from a Federal Publication (as usual, I have facts…you don’t):
HOMELAND SECURITY: National Monuments and Icons Sector-Specific Plan. An Annex to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. 2010.
Sedona. under a National Monument designation, will then become part of the National Monument Icon Program as an “asset” needing protection under Homeland Security. This affects the security of our school system and all the towns inside the monument or subject to the “Inholder’s Rule”, requiring further protection by Homeland Security because National Monuments are targets for Terrorists!
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO TURN YOUR TOWN INTO A INTERNATIONAL TARGET FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS? And if, to you, this comment smells of a “sky is falling” or “conspiracy theory” concoction, then why are the Feds planning for it?
see the quasi govt link:
National Monuments and Icons Sector-Specific Plan 2010
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=691263
All of this is great information. My question is: Why is KSB not having regular public meetings, if this is so important for our community. My husband went to a meeting and they acted like he was a spy. What gives with all the secrecy and the objective to push it before the president without passing it by Sedona and outlying communities first. Something is rotten in Denmark!!
J. Rick Normand this line says it all”
“WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO TURN YOUR TOWN INTO A INTERNATIONAL TARGET FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS? And if, to you, this comment smells of a “sky is falling” or “conspiracy theory” concoction, then why are the Feds planning for it?”
J. Rick Normand has hi jacked the discussion about the National Monument designation, and moved the discussion to his own crazy anti U.N. anti Fed –Target for terrorist, rants, yes rants, follow all the posts, really crazy stuff and off topic.
ss
I did not have the same experience as the previous commenter. I’ve been to a couple of the meetings, and it did not seem to me anyone was treated like a spy, but instead questions were answered thoroughly. Tom O’Halloran had years of experience in working on preserving water ways and in government and gave incredible detailed answers. It seemed to me that many of the askers did not want to listen to the facts, and the same misinformation was being offered repeatedly in questions. We need to preserve the beauty of this area for All of America and the future, not just for the few State and individual self serving interests that will profit from it’s development. I agree with Rob, we should look at the nay sayers and ask: “Is the source a special interest person/organization? Is your source representing the public welfare or a private agenda? Where did they get their information? Peel back the layers of the onion to get to the truth.”
@k keller,
May I respectfully request that you get yourself a copy of “They Thought They Were Free-The Germans 1933-45” by Milton Mayer, 1955, and read it well. You will recognize a version of yourself in it. The naysayers you mention have provided nothing but facts (go to the links below) while the proponents deal in merchandising of propaganda designed for targeting at people like you…a la Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda! The SVVRRNM, as proposed, will preserve nothing but it will give back to you some very nasty surprises.
Also, k keller, read my comments above @ September 1, 2015 at 9:17 am. Even if Obama signs the NM designation as an Executive Order, which he can’t do until a year from now, it will be nullified, reversed, or defunded after the next election in November 2016. Read real facts and intractable arguments opposed to an NM designation below and be sure to read the massive number of comments including the complete fade away of hysterical proponents who couldn’t come up with any supporting facts or points of authortiy. No one outside our little town of 9,500 wants it including a large majority of our Congressional delegation. Enjoy your dreams of a SVVRRNM!
http://sedonaeye.com/damn-all-of-you-who-want-all-the-facts/
http://sedonaeye.com/is-there-a-national-monument-designation-downside-part-ii/
http://sedonaeye.com/is-there-a-national-monument-designation-downside/
Exactly. Let’s peel back the layers and see WHY would someone want this designation – could it be that they are in the hotel industry and they think this is a way to get more business? This designation seems oxymoronic to me – it’s designed to bring more tourist to the area, and at the same time, “protect” the area from tourist.
Crazy.
We’re ALREADY on the map – as you can see by the traffic. We don’t need this designation, we need hands-on help to solve the traffic problems we have, not increase traffic without a sustainable plan.
We’re ALREADY taking care of the sacred red rocks. All this talk about “protection” is nothing more than fear porn to get the sheeple to go along. Show me where we aren’t already preserving the red rocks and I’ll show you where existing laws are not being enforced.
There’s too many questions and just soft-ball, pat answers. Not good enough. I say we change “Grand Canyon Watershed” to “Sedona Verde Valley Red Rocks” and resubmit this letter to the white house:
@magickj
Thank you magickj. I love the way you cut to the chase. Hopefully, you can come to our anti-NM designation rally tomorrow night at 5:30pm at the Canyon Trail’s Cowboy Church featuring Arizona Speaker of the House of Representatives David Gowan and Arizona Senate President Pro Tempore Sylvia Allen.
JRN
To all proponents of the SVVRRNM:
This just in from AZ Senate President Pro Tempore Sylvia Allen:
Senator Sylvia Allen
Lightning Bolt Update, 9/3/15
Bad, Bad, Bad Idea!
Two new national monuments are being proposed for Arizona: The Grand Canyon Watershed – 1.7 million acres, and The Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock – 160,000 acres including the town of Sedona.
Arizona has the third highest total designated wilderness acreage in the United States at 4.5 million acres.
Arizona has another 5.8 million acres affected by special land use designations including 18 national monuments (more monuments than other states.)
Why would we want to give up more of our land in Arizona and increase the oversite, regulation, and restrictions on the people and businesses of this state?
Why would we give more control of our water to the Federal Government?
Why would we support locking up thousands of acres of state trust land within the proposed monument boundaries?
Why would we impact private property and support the Red Rock Monument boundaries around Sedona? What a can of worms this will create!
The small minority who support these ideas are politicians who think it will give them leverage in their election with big green money donations and citizens who think it will bring some higher level of protection for the environment they love.
We already have numerous laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Forest Service Management Plan, and many others, to ensure the protection of these areas. We don’t need another layer of regulations spread across this state. Plus, the Federal Government has some of the worst-managed lands in the country.
Local control gives local protection to our citizens and businesses. Try dealing with someone 2000 miles away!
Rising tourism dollars is not a good reason either. How can you increase tourism to a place that is already saturated with visitors?
What can you do?
Write to the Arizona Congressional Delegation and President Obama and say NO to both monuments.
Lobby your local government if you live in the Verde Valley or near the Grand Canyon. Let them know you do not support the monuments.
Write letters to your local paper, post it on Facebook and forward this email to your list.
*****
You can also sign the Petition shown here:
Link Here to Sign Now: (copy and paste)
http://www.arizonaliberty.us/Vote_NO_SVVRRNM_U.html
Sincerely,
Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen
President Pro Tempore
Chairman, Rural Affairs and Environment
602-926-5409
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
@Rob Adams, @steve Segner, @k keller, @Peggy Chaikin, @ Deryn Warrenz;
As I always say, I always have the facts and points of authority and none of you ever do! Notice the signatures signed to this letter. Why don’t you try disputing the following mountain of facts, one by one, relative to the downside of the SVVRRNM you support:
Letter sent yesterday to the President of the United States Barack Obama
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 1 of 10
September 1, 2015
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
cc: U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,
U.S.Attorney Genera Loretta Lynch
Dear Mr. President:
This letter reiterates the numerous official communications sent to the United States from the State of Arizona in continued opposition to the creation of the proposed 1.7 million acre Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument (GCWNM), and any other new or enlarged National Monument within Arizona. The thirty-nine (39) below listed bipartisan Arizona State House and Senate members are unequivocally opposed to the GCWNM.
Additionally, the GCWNM is opposed by: 25 members of the U.S. House of Representatives including the majority of Arizona Congressmen, both U.S. Senators McCain and Flake, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and its Commission, Arizona city and county elected officials, members of the Arizona Havasupai and Navajo Tribes, and over 60 wildlife, recreational and agricultural organizations.
Nearly 81 percent (59.7 million acres) of land within Arizona is already under the control of the United States (see the gray areas in the BLM map to the left), including National Monuments, National Parks, National Forests, Bureau of Land Management, military, tribal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Wilderness restrictions and special land use designations. The GCWNM will withdraw 1.7 million additional acres from multiple-uses, such as
recreation (hiking, camping, hunting, fishing), agriculture (farming, ranching, grazing), mining and development. Only about 18 percent of the 73 million acres of land within Arizona is in private ownership, and thus paying taxes for public education and other needed government services. This places Arizona and the other western states at huge fiscal disadvantages, in comparison to the eastern states that have very small percentages of their land under the control of the United States.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 2 of 10
Executive Summary of the Facts The following includes many of the reasons why the United States cannot and should not create the GCWNM:
It is a contractual breach by the United States of the terms of Arizona’s Enabling Act,
which stipulates that a portion of the revenue from the State Trust land be used for
public education (the beneficiaries.) The existing and newly proposed National
Monuments encumber almost 162,000 acres of Arizona State Trust land, which violates
the terms of Arizona’s Enabling Act and financially punishes Arizona public education 4
None of the Arizona Legislatures (as required by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17 of
the U.S. Constitution), Governors, or any voter referendum has ever approved the
creation of any of the National Monuments or National Parks created within Arizona 2
It will encumber 1.7 million more acres of land within Arizona (an area larger than the
States of Delaware and Rhode Island combined), including the unconstitutional seizing
of over 62,000 acres of additional State Trust land, 7,000 acres of private land, and vast
amounts of contractually leased public land. The perimeter fence alone will be greater
than the distance between Washington D.C and New York City, approximately 206
miles long. It will lock-up vast natural lumber and mineral resources, including gold, silver, copper, and what is believed to be the largest and richest uranium deposits in the
world, a resource that has been called “the most significant of strategic minerals.” The
National Materials and Minerals Policy Research and Development Act of 1980, TITLE
30 CHAPTER 28 § 1601 begins by stating “The Congress finds that (1) the availability of
materials is essential for national security, economic well-being, and industrial
production.” Encumbering this important resource would be devastating for the United
States, especially in light of the recent revelation that under Secretary of State Clinton,
the Russians have gained control over 20 percent of the United States Uranium 10
GCWNM was not proposed in compliance with FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and
Management Act) or NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), and its creation lacks
transparency, public involvement and a full accounting of all impacts to multi-users
including outdoor recreational enthusiasts. It specifically harms Arizona’s authority to
manage wildlife (including threatened and endangered) and their associated habitats
Use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 3 for the creation of National Monuments within the
states is in violation of the U.S. Constitution:
1. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17: use of state land by the United States must be for
enumerated uses and “purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state”.
Arizona has never approved or has been compensated for the State Trust land
encumbered within the National Monuments.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 3 of 10
2. The Fifth Amendment: “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation,” which has occurred repeatedly to Arizona State Trust,
private and contractually leased public land
3. Article 4, Section 4: citizens are constitutionally guaranteed a “Republican Form of
Government” within the states, which is violated whenever an individual enters
Federally controlled Arizona lands
4. The Antiquities Act is unconstitutional because it grants the President with entirely
new powers that are not enumerated and are not in Pursuance of the Constitution
(the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2.) The U.S. Constitution does not grant
Congress with the enumerated power or authority to enact these new Executive
powers, which are clearly not in pursuance of the Constitution, but are in fact in
direct conflict with it (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17.) In order for the Act to be
considered Constitutional, a new amendment is required that would define
“National Monuments” and “National Parks” as enumerated uses of land within a
state by the United States, and would provide the President with these new powers
claimed within the Act: to seize land within a state for use by the United States
without the consent of the state legislature and without just compensation.
The GCWNM, and the current National Monuments, violate multiple provisions of the
Antiquities Act of 1906 which is used as the instrument for the unlawful seizure of huge
amounts of State Trust, private and contractually leased public land
It violates the doctrine of the Equality of States: The United States currently controls
59.7 million acres (81 percent) of land within Arizona. This includes 3.7 million acres
within 22 National Monuments and Parks, which have already encumbered almost
100,000 acres of State Trust land, and countless acres of private land and contractually
leased public land. The United States only pays PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) at an
annual average of about 59 cents per acre, but unlike all other private landowners, the
United States does not pay assessed property taxes on any of the 59.7 million acres of
land it holds within Arizona. This massive inequity in the Federal control of state land
does not exist within the eastern states, and it dramatically harms our city, county and
state government’s ability to fund education and basic public services.
It again violates the doctrine of the Equality of States: Arizona currently has the largest number of National Monuments (22) created with the second largest number of acres (3.7 million.) There are grave inequalities between western and eastern states. There are almost 5 times more National Monuments in the western states (W=102, E=23), the total number of acres of National Monuments in the western states is 879 times larger (W=71,200,000 acres, E=81,000 acres), and the average number of acres within each Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument,
National Monument in the western states is 189 times larger (W=698,337 acres, E=3,523 acres).
It will end multiple-use lands within the GCWNM, including access, conservation
efforts and wildlife-related recreation, wildlife population augmentations, wildlife
habitat manipulations and enhancements, wildlife water development and
maintenance, and hunting and fishing access
It has huge potentially negative economic impacts: fishing, hunting and recreation
generates $1.2 billion in spending, creating an economic impact of $2.1 billion to the
State of Arizona annually, supporting more than 18,000 jobs, $699 million in wages, and
generating more than $132 million in state tax revenue. Arizona’s neighbor Utah reports
that with the creation of the Escalante-Grand Staircase National Monument, local
counties and communities have experienced rural depopulation, a negative impact on
public schools, and overall economic losses and negative impacts to the cities, counties
and state.
In conclusion, the State of Arizona implores the United States to end its 109-year
unconstitutional practice of creating National Monuments within Arizona and the other states, that place land use restrictions on additional acreage within Arizona, and to immediately begin the process of fully returning these lands to the control of each state. Additionally, the United States needs to immediately begin the process of disposing of its vast land holdings within Arizona and the other western states, as it has already done in the eastern states.
Most Respectfully,
Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe, Legislative District 6
Co-signers of this Letter Include:
House Speaker Gowan
Representative Barton
Representative Borelli
Representative Boyer
Representative Campbell
Representative Cobb
Representative Coleman
Representative Fann
Representative Finchem
Representative Gray
Representative Kern
Representative Lawrence
Representative Leach
Representative Livingston
Representative Mesnard
Representative Mitchell
Representative Norgaard
Representative Pratt
Representative Robson
Representative Shope
Representative Stevens
Representative Townsend
Representative Ugenti
Representative Weninger
Senator Allen
Senator Barto
Senator Begay
Senator Burges
Senator Dial
Senator Farnsworth
Senator Griffin
Senator Kavanagh
Senator Lesko
Senator Pierce
Senator Shooter
Senator Smith
Senator Ward
Senator Worsley
Senator Yarbrough
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 5 of 10
The following information is provided in support of the claims made within this letter,
and are referenced by superscript numerals (see above) to the following numbered
items.
1. The Findings of the Arizona Game and Fish Department
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and its Commission are in
opposition to the GCWNM, its special land-use designation, and the resulting impacts
on multiple-use lands, including the impacts on access, conservation efforts and
wildlife-related recreation. This proposed Presidential Proclamation lacks transparency,
public involvement and a full accounting of all impacts to multi-users, specifically the
Department’s authority to manage wildlife, associated habitat and the impacts to
outdoor recreational enthusiasts.
The AZGFD Commission’s concerns include:
• The new National Monument has not been proposed in compliance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act or the National Environmental Policy
Act.
• It does not take into consideration traditional uses of the land, which includes
recreational opportunities.
• It may further restrict and preclude motorized access for recreational use,
wildlife viewing opportunities, disabled hunters and anglers, and the retrieval of
downed game.
• It may cause legal ambiguity concerning the ability to properly manage wildlife
and wildlife habitat.
An analysis by the AZGFD demonstrates that this new national monument designation
can lead to restrictions on proactive wildlife management, including but not limited to:
• Wildlife population augmentations
• Wildlife habitat manipulations and enhancements
• Wildlife water development and maintenance
• Hunting and fishing access
2. U.S. Constitutionally: Enumerated Use of State Land by the United States
According to the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17, the United States
has specific enumerated uses for land within a state that are “purchased by the consent
of the legislature of the state.” Much of the 59.7 million acres (81 percent) of Arizona
land that is currently under the control of the United States does not serve a
Constitutionally approved enumerated purpose, including:
National Monuments
National Parks
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 6 of 10
National Forests
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acreage
Wilderness Areas
Wildlife Refuges
National Historic Sites
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings
3. The Antiquities Act of 1906
The enumerated powers and restrictions of the United States government are defined
within the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Antiquities Act is
unconstitutional because Congress does not have the power or authority to grant the
Executive Branch of the United States with the power to seize land, a power which is
not granted anywhere within the Constitution. In fact, Article 4, Section 3 suggests that
Congress only has the power to dispose of land, not to acquire.
The Antiquities Act is also unconstitutional, because it allows for the creation of
‘National Monuments,’ which are not defined as constitutionally enumerated uses of
state land by the United States. In the past 109-years, Congress has never bothered to
propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would fix these problems.
Section 2 of the Antiquities Act states “That the President of the United States is hereby
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that
are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United
States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the
limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper
care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects
are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private
ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and
management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of
the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of
the Government of the United States.”
The Act states that those lands that will become National Monuments must be owned
or controlled by the government of the United States, which has typically not been the
case in much of the lands that constitute the National Monuments created within
Arizona. Nowhere within the Act does it suggest that the United States has the
authority to seize State Trust land, especially without state legislative approval or just
compensation as required by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 7 of 10
The Act encourages property owners with a “tract covered by a bona fied unperfected
claim or held in private ownership” to relinquish their property to the United States,
which conflicts with the Fifth Amendment that requires the United States to
compensate citizens when it takes property for public use.
However, the Act does state “the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the
smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
protected.” In almost every case, this provision of the Act has been violated by the
United States, where the average size of the National Monuments located within
Arizona is almost 174,000 acres, clearly not confined to the smallest area as called for
within the Act, lands that include Arizona State Trust, private and contractually leased
public land.
The United States has not demonstrated a valid justification for the immense 1.7 million
acre size of the proposed GCWNM, or in fact the other 22 National Monuments that
were created within Arizona. Where is the inventory of each specific individual
“historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or
scientific interest” to be protected, as called for in the Act? Where is each object located
(GPS coordinates), where are the digital photographs of each object, where is the
independent peer-reviewed scientific documentation and justification / necessity for
protecting each object, how many square feet of land does each object occupy and what
is the amount of land (in square feet) that is required for the “proper care and
management of the objects to be protected” as called for within the Act?
4. Arizona Enabling Act of 1910 and Public Education Funding
The creation of National Monuments directly conflicts with Arizona’s Enabling Act,
which repeatedly refers to the use of State Trust land, and in Section 24 states: “the
passage of this Act are hereby granted to the said State for the support of common
schools”. If the United States creates another National Monument within Arizona,
almost 162,000 acres of State Trust land will be financially unavailable for use by the
beneficiaries outlined in Arizona’s Enabling Act, including public schools and
universities. This is a violation, a breach of the contractual terms agreed to by Congress
and by the State of Arizona within its Enabling Act, which stipulates that the financial
proceeds from the Arizona State Trust land would be used to support public education.
5. National Monuments Located Within Arizona
The twenty-two National Monuments created within Arizona total 3.7 million acres.
The addition of the proposed 1.7 million acre GCWNM would increase Arizona’s total
National Monument acreage by 146 percent to 5.4 million acres. The total size of
National Monuments within Arizona would then exceed each individual size of the
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 8 of 10
states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island,
an area 127 times larger than Washington DC.
6. Negative Economic Impacts of National Monuments
According to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, fishing and hunting
recreation generates $1.2 billion in spending and creates an economic impact of $2.1
billion to the State of Arizona annually. These activities support more than 18,000 jobs,
provides residents with $699 million in salary and wages and generates more than $132
million in state tax revenue. Our neighbor Utah reports that with the creation of the
Escalante-Grand Staircase National Monument, local counties and communities have
experienced rural depopulation, a negative impact on public schools, and overall
economic losses and negative impacts to the cities, counties and state.
7. Due Process Under the Law
The seizure of 1.7 million more acres for the GCWNM by Presidential Proclamation is a
violation of the State of Arizona and its private citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed
Due Process rights. The Fifth Amendment states that “No person shall… be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.”
8. Guaranteed Republican Form of Government
The 59.7 million acres of land currently controlled by the United States within Arizona
is a violation both of Arizona state sovereignty and Arizona’s constitutionally
guaranteed Republican Form of Government (Article 4, Section 4). When within those
Federally controlled lands, citizens do not have a voice or vote, they do not have the
same liberties that are guaranteed by Arizona outside of those lands, and they have no
city, county or state representation.
9. Doctrine of the Equality of States
Arizona’s Enabling Act of 1910 states “the proposed State of Arizona shall be deemed
admitted by Congress into the Union by virtue of this Act on an equal footing with
other States.” The Supreme Court ruled (3 Stat. 489, 492 (1819)) concerning the
sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States, that inasmuch as the original States retained
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within
their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over
common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an
equal footing with the original States.
doctrine-of-equality-of-states.html). The huge 81 percent of land controlled by the
United States places Arizona (and the other western states) on an unequal footing with
the original States and with the eastern states.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 9 of 10
10. Arizona Uranium deposits in the proposed GCWNM
On June 24, 2015, the Arizona State Geologist released its new report “Partial database
for breccia pipes and collapse features on the Colorado Plateau, northwestern Arizona”
) that found concentrations of
breccia pipes 10 to 100 times higher than previously known, in two test study areas.
Breccia pipes are the primary targets for uranium and other minerals. The State
Geologist believes that the same density of pipes extends across the entire region, which would make the area, that includes the GCWNM, one of the largest and richest uranium districts in the world. For the United States, Uranium has been called “the most
significant of strategic minerals.” From a safety standpoint, more Uranium flows down
the Colorado River from natural erosion (60 tons) than is annually mined worldwide.
11. Resolutions, Letters and Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National
Monument Include
• A February 2015 letter in opposition written to the President by 25 members of
the U.S. House of Representatives
• A 2015 Arizona State Legislative Concurrent Memorial #1001
• A February 2015 Legislative Resolution from the Arizona State House of
Representatives
• A May 2012 Resolution from the Arizona Game and Fish Department
Commission
• A March 2015 Resolution from Jim Unmacht, the President of the Arizona
Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation, which includes AZ Deer Association, AZ
Outdoor Sports, AZ Big Game Super Raffle, 1.2.3.Go…, AZ Antelope
Foundation, AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Outdoor Experience 4 All, Xtreme
Predator Callers, AZ Houndsmen, AZ Flycasters Club, Coconino Sportsmen, AZ
Bowhunters Association, South Eastern AZ Sportsmen’s Club, Mohave
Sportsman Club, AZ State Chapter of National Wild Turkey Federation, AZ Elk
Society, AZ Chapter of Safari Club International, AZ BASS Nation, The BASS
Federation, SRT Outdoors, Anglers United, AZ Council of Trout Unlimited
• An April 2015 Resolution from Mayor John Moore and the city council of the
City of Williams, Arizona
• An April 2015 Resolution from the Town Council of Fredonia, Arizona
• A letter to The Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
and to The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
from Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation partnership
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page 10 of 10
• A letter to U.S Representatives Grijalva, Kirkpatrick & Gallego from the members
of Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boone
and Crockett Club, Camp Fire Club of America, Congressional Sportsmen’s
Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari
Club, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Houston Safari Club, Masters of Foxhounds
Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Forest Service
Retirees, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation,
National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Bear Foundation, Orion: The
Hunter’s Institute, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Tread Lightly!,
Wildlife Management Institute, Wild Sheep Foundation, Whitetails Unlimited,
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
• A March 2015 letter to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from the Arizona
Wildlife Foundation
• A March 2015 letter to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from the Apache
County Supervisor Barry Weller
• An April 2015 letter from Steve Clark, Executive Director of the Arizona Elk
Society
• A public statement in August 2015 by Mohave County, the Mohave Cattlemen
association and the Mohave Sportsmen Club
• Letters sent to Federal officials by the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association
• Letters sent to Federal officials by the Arizona Farm Bureau
• Letters sent to Federal officials by President Jim Parks and the Coconino County
Cattle Growers & Farm Bureau
• Former Yavapai County Cattle Growers President Andy Groseta
• The members of the Arizona RockProducts Association
Hello. I am from Victorville, CA but my family lives in Pomona. We often go to the San Gabriel NM. I’ve been going to the same picnic and campground since we was kids – since at least 2003. The place became a National Monument 3 or 4 years ago, but nothing has changed. It’s still the litter and graffiti filled place it always was. We were there on Father’s Day and we had to sweep up all the broken glass before we could set up for the day. A ranger came round and said that there’s no money for Park Service maintenance and it will be a while before they get the funding to hire maintenance people. When asked about that 3 million dollars the National Monument was supposed to be getting, he said that that money was raised by volunteers before the monument was created – the money didn’t come from the feds and fund raising efforts are continuing. Later we went to go for a hike but we kept coming upon fences and signs that said “No Access.” I guess that’s what they spent the 3 million dollars on. Sedona – don’t do it. Don’t get the National Monument status. It won’t help you.
OK, so there you have it – thanks Archie Mendez for chiming in!
A quick look at the Feds 2015 budget shows a 426 Billion dollar deficit.
Again, where’s they magic money to pay for the National Monument going to come from? They say we’ll have more money to “protect” the red rocks in order to sell the idea to the citizens, but Archie here has testified that that isn’t necessarily true. Two years ago the state had to BEG the Feds to allow Arizona to pay to keep the Grand Canyon open (Sedona didn’t care – it was the biggest 10 days for Sedona tourism we’ve ever had!) Over 20,000 Park Service employees were furloughed, and the reason – the White House said – that they closed even the open air monuments was to annoy the people and “cause as much pain as possible.”
Sedona, let’s not fall for their games. Under a National Monument, the Feds (as we can see by recent history) will have the power to shut the whole Verde Valley down – even if just to prove a point. We will still be managed by the Park Service, but through another layer of rules, laws, and regulations. If you take a look to what happened to the community around the Escalante National Monument, you’ll see that the economy crashed because fishing, hiking, and camping outfitters went out of business. Is this what you want for Sedona? We can care for the red rocks, maintain a healthy tourism base, and create a wonderful quality of life WITHOUT the help of the federal government.
@Archie Mendez,
Thank you for your comment Archie. May I please ask you to post your same comment at
http://sedonaeye.com/sedona-verde-valley-red-rock-national-monument-proponents-mislead-public/
JRN
@J.J.,
J.J., once Archie has republished his comment at The Eye, would you please post your comment here at:
http://sedonaeye.com/sedona-verde-valley-red-rock-national-monument-proponents-mislead-public/
Thank you.
JRN
Most thought the San Gabriel Mountain National Monument was about protecting the pines, the wilderness, the natural springs. And then the talk about transportation from poor areas into the monument began.
Really? This is what you want for Sedona?
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-and-nature/20150702/groups-want-buses-to-serve-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument
@ steve segner,
I am the one who brought the UN into it. My reason, Steve, is we used to publish essentially the only Green Magazine in the country. The definition of the word “Green” according to the Green movement itself is to create Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice for all people worldwide.
The mission statement of our company is to create Social, Economic, and Environmental solutions for all people worldwide. It is my job, my life, and my passion to be aware of where all three of those conjunct.
The ultimate truth is there was a time when i was pretty naive and unaware of a lot of things until i really started thinking, acting, and investigating on a higher level: globally.
We spend almost half our time here in Sedona, and half abroad. Were always traveling and this is the way we think and percieve the world.
Furthermore, there is a saying in the Green movement, “think global, act local”. UN Agenda 21 is essentially the UNs plan for how to nit pick and get in our daily lives at a local level and bring all of it into their global plan for all of us.
There’s also a saying in politics, “all politics are local”. Long story short, in this day and age you have to think globaly anytime anything of this magnitude is happening in your own backyard. You’ve got to think 10 steps ahead. You cant be short sighted about a decision this big.
The truth Steve, is i used to be naive. Like someone lacking street smarts, in the game of global politics and how it all REALLY works.
Rick, completely, 100% has woken up, taken the red pill and done his homework. He is way ahead of the game. Way ahead of the curve. We honestly need to become humble and admit and accept what we do not know and appreciate and honor those that are really fighting the fight, doing years, if not decades, of deep, deep research to the reveal the truth to us all.
Rick is doing that. And he deserves to be honored and recognized for that work. Especially when he’s being balked at and attacked constantly for holding the light of truth.
He’s speaking the truth. He’s well researched. He sees the big picture. We shouldnt belittle him just because we dont.
Ernie Strauch ,
Said it all in the Red Rock news this Friday, The Red Rock National Monument has become a political food ball.
Much of the conversation is what you expect on midnight A.M. Talk radio
And J. Rick Normand is Sedona’s “ART BELL” http://artbell.com
ss
@Rob Adams
Are you listening Rob? Sandy Moriarty was… last night, as I gave a speech. Ask her about it.
My personal invitation to you to debate me in public on the NM designation still stands? Please, let me hear from you. I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ready!
JRN
@steve Segner
The Red Rock News? I didn’t know that there was anyone left in Sedona that still reads that technologically-challenged print rag other than those really advanced-age seniors who can’t use a computer.
JRN
Rick,
What you really mean is only old fools and idiots read the papers, The Red Rock News, New Your Times, The Atlantic Monthly The New Yorker or other “edited” news outlets.
The cool kids get your “Cut and Past Rants “ rants on line.
Rick, you sucked the air out of the debate and turned it into a one man diatribe.
ss
@steve Segner,
Well, Steve, it’s fairly easy for me to knock the air out of you and take over the debate. In fact, that’s why I don’t waste time with you.
Exactly Rick, “takes over the debate:
What should have been a conversation, but we all know Rick cannot have a simple conversation, ss
“When you can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.” (*Thanks, Darryl Z. Looks like ss is still at it.)
@Steve Segner,
Yeah Steve. I dont know any of you although it sounds like you know each other. I have to admit that i havent heard anyone make an intelligent argument for their case other than Rick. Do you have an intelligent argument beyond just attacking people?
I’ve given you a logical reason for why i said what i said and Rick has provided plenty of data and evidence. Name calling is a pretty low level intellectual argument. I can respect the attacks and name calling if it is joined with facts, logic, and reason.
Sinply attacking a person who is appealing to logic and reason (as well as providing evidence and facts) and have no other argument yourself is a sign that you are not moving from nor using logic or reason as your argument.
Your just name calling and reacting. Can you please, can anyone please provide a sound argument for why we need to be a National Monument when so many sound, fact based counter arguments can be made for why we shouldnt?
Please try to use intellect, facts and evidence.
Very simple, I trust the Federal government more then I do the state government, it is that simple.
Steve
@Steve Segner,
Ok thank you for your honest answer. I can completely repsect that and agree to disagree then. I wasnt completely undertanding the counter argument.
I without a doubt do not trust our federal government currently, as they have way over reached the powers authorized and granted to them by the Constitution and I whole heartedly believe it is both parties guilty of this. The right does it primarily through the military industrial complex and the left does it through entitlement programs (social welfare).
I have the same politics and beliefs out founders did. The following article i believe opens the doorway to how the founders felt about this subject and I tend to agree with them on all of my politics and they are the only people I look to for guidance. That is why i believe what i believe.
– • Thu, Nov 17, 2011
By Don Powers
Our American Founders trusted We the People more than they trusted themselves or any other leaders. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Papers, No. 25, p. 164, wrote, “the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those [toward] whom they entertain the least suspicion.” This distrust of anyone in power over the people created, at The Constitutional Convention of 1787, a search to answer one central question: How can we structure an efficient government and protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people?
Founder James Madison examined the problem as did the other founders, through his Christian faith. Madison considered that placement of political power in the hands of fallible man, who by nature is both good and evil, would require constraints within the government itself to control this nature, which, if left unchecked, would lead to perpetual expansion of government. Additionally, man would use such expanding government and the public trust to feed his ego-mania and self-aggrandizement, if the people did not exercise their duty to watch and replace their representatives who strayed from the Constitutional path.
Madison addressed these human tendencies in the Federalist Papers, No. 51 p. 322, when he wrote, “If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. [But lacking angels] in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Governing the governed while leaving them free and restricting the government are the major goals of the Constitution.
As recorded in our American history, proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and writings of our Founders, the Constitution is a document that expresses the power, rights, and duties of “We the People.” At the same time, it delineates the constraints upon and limited powers granted to the Federal Government. The writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, screams across the centuries to us today, in his command, “bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go….In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” (The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Annals of America, 4:65-66)
Not only does Jefferson clearly reflect the intent of the Constitution to restrict the power of the Federal Government and our representatives, he also implies that, through the Constitution, the United States is to be a nation of Laws, not the edicts of men.
Insuring that our representatives live within the proscribed limits of the enumerated powers granted to the government, under the Constitution, is the duty of the governed, We the People. Over the last hundred years, We the People have failed to restrain our representatives in their attempts to enslave us as they operate outside their constitutional limits. On the same plane, our representatives are aware of their duties under the Constitution and the constitutional restrictions on their actions. Even so, they have openly operated against We the People, illegally expanding government at every turn. Everything, of which our Founders warned us, has come true. The Founders were correct in their distrust of man’s ability to rule over man. The only question now is, Can We the People do anything about it?
Independence Facts
William Goudy, of North Carolina, in his state’s ratification convention said, “Power belongs originally to the people, but if rulers be not well guarded (by the people), that power may be usurped from them. People ought to be cautious about giving away power….If we give away more power than we ought, we put ourselves in the situation of a man who puts on an iron glove, which he can never take off till he breaks his arm. Let is beware of the iron glove of tyranny.” (Notes of the Ratification Conventions, ed., Elliot, 4:10) — –
I’m still waiting for someone to point out why we’d want a National Monument…
Everything they say WILL happen – is already in place.
NO ONE is out to destroy the red rocks. There are rules and regulations to protect the land. We don’t need more rules.
After reading the article about bringing people from low income areas in by the BUS LOAD, has anyone thought about over-crowding? What would happen to the water quality when there’s more dirty diapers, more trash, more bacteria – and more money will be needed to take care of the area.
All we have to do is look back at what happened to the “improvements” to Hwy 179. All that money, all that construction, and it did nothing to help the traffic – but they put red curbs in all the way from the Y to the Village, restricting access. You can no longer stop along the road, or decorate a few trees, or even walk along the highway. This is ALL ABOUT restricting access, creating more problems because some think they’ll make a few more dollars from the tourist.
Money isn’t the end-all and be-all for Sedonians. We have a quality of life to think about.
Hahaha! “I trust the Feds.”
OK good for you, big guy.
They’ve lied too many times as far as I’m concerned.
“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” is just ONE of the White House lies we’ve had to endure. I lost my doctor, I lost my insurance, and I can’t afford Obamacare (premiums went from $165/mo to $1337/mo).
So you see, “If you like your Sedona, you can keep your Sedona” is just another hollow promise.
Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Monument commented on Facebook that they weren’t even going to discuss the shutdown that occurred two years ago. So if they have a question they can’t answer, they are just going to ignore it. Ernie Strauch wrote a letter to RRN saying he can’t stand the politics – ahahaha! And why did Obama shut those National Monuments down? “To cause as much pain as possible” and the FEDS held the STATES under ransom until Republicans and Democrats could come to an agreement over the budget. As mentioned earlier, the Feds are now $459 BILLION short of meeting 2015 obligations – and you want to give them another thing to manage with that shortfall?
I keep hearing how the National Monument will keep the Feds in control of the state. The question is – This is the control you want? Are you insane?
How many Sedonians enjoy going out for a hike with their dogs? Well, too bad – because dogs AREN’T allowed inside a National Monument.
How many Sedonians enjoy going out to Shaman’s Cave to meditate? Well, too bad – under a National Monument TROLLEYS full of people only – no private vehicles. An those ATV rental companies? Too BAD – no business for you! What part of NO private vehicles did you miss? And tour companies? TOO BAD. Especially you solo tour guides – if you’re out with clients even on private property you will be arrested for not having the proper permits. People with their own wells and access to creek irrigation water? TOO BAD – the National Monument’s water rights exceed yours, even if you’ve had those water rights forEVER. You need a new road or improvements to your road? TOO BAD – no roads in National Monuments. You’d like to build a home? TOO BAD – you must abide by the draconian NM rules, adding more expense to the building. No way “affordable” housing can be built. Hotels – you’ll need to pay a fee to the FEDS to maintain your business. Where do think all that magic money will come from? MORE TAXES AND FEES!
idiots.
@J.J., Brian, Can’t Agree More, and Michael
Since you’re all skilled writers, commenters, and thinkers, would you all please post your comments @
http://sedonaeye.com/sedona-verde-valley-red-rock-national-monument-proponents-mislead-public/
This is where the real debate is being carried on without censoring from the site manager.
JRN
If the people who helped craft Sedona back in the 70’s and early 80’s could see what the attention seeking wh@r3s have done to this town. My relatives worked hard to make Sedona a great place to raise a family and live in solitude while in a small town setting. I wish karma would take these sell serving types back to where they came from.
This is a cut and paste from Facebook:
Jo Kontzer: I wonder why there is so much passion against this move to protect the beauty of Sedona from developers. That is all this will do. All the anti National Monument activity is just plain ignorant.
Ahahahahaaaaa! Look who’s the one who refuses to see beyond the propaganda!
This is actually tragic – that so many people are buying into the lies. I guess KSB is doing a wonderful job keeping people in the dark and making them believe that the National Monument is a GOOD thing.
Sorry Jo Kontzer, it will do MUCH more than put a pinch on developers! Any development you don’t like was approved by your City Council Zoning and Planning. Read the comments. Educate yourself. Don’t fall for the false light!
After several requests/complaints from readers, Sedona.biz has decided to stop publishing Mr. Rick Normand’s comments.
For those of you who enjoy Mr. Normand’s unique style, he has kindly provided this link to continue engaging him:
http://sedonaeye.com/sedona-verde-valley-red-rock-national-monument-proponents-mislead-public/
We encourage civil debate and will continue to provide a forum to discuss both sides of issues affecting Sedona and the Verde Valley. You are welcome to submit articles and Letters to The Editor to PR@Sedona.biz.
AZ pretends to be so independent.
We completely follow the lead of the Gov’t in spite of shaking our finger at the president nose.
Its a farse.
We sold the capital buildings during the 2008 downturn, we follow Obamacare and everything handed down from DC whilst pretending to be such rebels and cowboys………
Did you know Tucson is already operating under Marshall law?
Our AZ Corp Comm is totally corrupt.
The fire depts and school system are all job sharing and removing local layers of government and control.
The politicians are all scrambling to step up a notch because they know the lower levels of gov’t are going away.
Whoever becomes Yavapai County Supervisor is going to develop the hell out of this side of the Mountain.
Prescott already took Cornville’s water in the “surprise” redistricting thrown out last minute by Springer and Thurman. They took the springs, people.
The UN Agenda 21 was signed in 1992 by Bush in Rio. Steve Singer pretends its a joke because the underlings are taught to act that way.
He is a true follower. Could not even keep his paperwork in order when he was just a pretend lodging association….not in good standing….