Mt. San Jacinto Outdoor Recreation

Obama eyes a remote corner of the Mojave for a desert monument -- Desert Sun
http://www.desertsun.com/longform/news/ ... /79649546/

If this is going to be done why not make it part of the Mojave National Preserve instead of creating more inefficient bureaucracy?

Except for the beurocracy factor , it sounds like a good idea. The article says that Joshua trees, bighorn, and other flora/fauna are flourishing here. That monument status is opposed by off-road enthusiasts and mining interests makes this seem like a place that should be protected.

Our wilderness areas are disappearing at a frightening speed. If bureaucracy is the price for protection, so be it.

According to the article, it sounds like most of the controversy (which is apparently small) involves gold mining operations, which is a highly polluting and destructive process.

If you ever buy a gold ring or have a new gold filling, it is important to at least make sure it is recycled gold rather than new gold.

Unfortunately, even monument status leaves the land open to exploitation. Governments are mediocre preservationists.

Wildhorse wrote:Unfortunately, even monument status leaves the land open to exploitation. Governments are mediocre preservationists.

Well, not exactly. There are various levels of protection. The lowest is what is called BLM land where there is little to no protection. Here the federal government holds title to land that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The highest level is national park status which includes national preserves, seashores, and lakeshores. Sandwiched somewhere in between are national marine sanctuaries, recreation areas, wild and scenic rivers, wildlife refuges, etc. National monument status is only one level above BLM land. It is not perfect, but it is better than nothing. The whole history of our system of preserved land is basically a battle between keeping our natural heritage and losing it to those whose only interest is in exploiting it for their own gain.

One's view of how much protection monument, park, wilderness and other designations provide the land from exploitation depends on what one considers exploitation and protection. What I see in each of these areas makes me feel sad.

Even when these designations prevent mining and certain other development, they allow significant abuse by the public for whom they are protected, especially by the tourists and trail users. In the Palm Springs area, for example, the public has resisted protection of the bighorns who live in our local monument because such protection impairs the pleasure of hikers. Yosemite, Yellowstone and Grand Canyon are great examples of how much exploitation takes place in and around "protected" lands.

I see significant exploitation every time I hike, in every wild area I know. The people I know who work for the government agencies charged with protection see it too, and it bothers them. In our area, certain local agencies work for maximum preservation while others seem seek maximum benefits for themselves. I imagine it is the same everywhere.

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/env ... /80235292/ --- I hope this follow up has some additional information

There is a movement in Congress to strip this President and all future Presidents of their ability to put federal land into National Monuments.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... arks-bill/

RichardK wrote:Our wilderness areas are disappearing at a frightening speed. If bureaucracy is the price for protection, so be it.

Why not just fold the land into the already designated areas they are next to? That's the point I was after.