Last Wednesday, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee introduced a new bill that would limit 鈥渢he establishment or extension of national monuments in the state of Utah.鈥� Except鈥t feels a lot like old bills he鈥檚 introduced, with no success, in the past.

This go-round, Lee鈥檚 calling it the PURE Act, which stands for 鈥淧rotect Utah鈥檚 Rural Economy.鈥�

It鈥檚 his latest political spike strip, meant to impair a president from creating new national monuments in his state. In September 2016, that would prohibit extensions of monuments without the go-ahead from Congress. In August 2015, it was a bill that would (which was nearly to a bill he co-sponsored seven months prior). Actually, Lee has tried to squash presidential power to create monuments since at least June 2011聽with his , which sought to curb the establishment of new national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and the like.

But the PURE Act is slightly different鈥攁t least in tone, name, and, perhaps most important, in the political era it鈥檚 being introduced. Last year, the Trump administration rolled back several national monuments, and two of those鈥擥rand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears鈥攁re in Utah. 鈥淚n both cases, the local residents were not appreciative of the monument, and the state did not have a voice in the designation itself,鈥� Conn Carroll, communications director for Lee, told 国产吃瓜黑料. Lee鈥檚 PURE Act 鈥渨ould provide pretty much the same protections that Wyoming has,鈥� Carroll says.

It鈥檚 maybe a little-known fact, but it鈥檚 true that Wyoming and Alaska restrict the establishment of new monuments within their boundaries unless Congress approves. Both were special cases, passed for different reasons, but it鈥檚 something Lee seems very interested in bringing to Utah.

For Alaska, this moment came in 1971, when President Richard Nixon signed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). It was meant to settle disputes over Native lands there, and it gave the secretary of the interior鈥攁t the time, Rogers C.B. Morton鈥攖he ability to withdraw lands from ANCSA that he thought should be protected and gave him the ability to set aside up to 80 million acres for potential conservation. But there was a catch: Congress had five years to green-light that land for federal protection or else it would be handed back for potential development. By 1978, it still hadn鈥檛 made any action on the land.

In December 1978, President Jimmy Carter of Alaskan land as monuments for federal protection. 鈥淚t鈥檚 noted by some folks as the most significant land conservation measure in history,鈥� says Alexandra Klass, a distinguished McKnight University professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Alaskans, however, were not too happy. Protesters , then organized the Great Denali Trespass, in which upset locals entered the park to shoot off guns in protest. To appease angry state legislatures, Congress passed a law putting an end to presidentially declared monuments.

In Wyoming, drama over public lands and the president鈥檚 use of the Antiquities Act there started much earlier, in the 1920s, when鈥攁ccording to one article鈥攔ich conservationist John D. Rockefeller started snatching up land near Jackson Hole that he would later donate to the federal government. The understanding was that the land would be set aside for a national park, and by 1943, when that hadn鈥檛 happened, Rockefeller threatened to sell. So President Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped in with the Antiquities Act, establishing Jackson Hole National Monument.

People were outraged. Ranchers drove more than 500 head of cattle across the monument in protest, egging the National Park Service to stop them. Soon, Congress passed a bill that no more lands could be set aside as monuments in Wyoming鈥攂ut Roosevelt vetoed it. More drama ensued. Finally, in 1950, seven years after Jackson Hole was designated, it was folded into Grand Teton National Park. Part of the compromise the federal government made with Wyoming legislators was that no further monuments could be established in their state.

Lee鈥檚 PURE Act follows the Wyoming mold, says John Ruple, a professor at the University of Utah鈥檚 S.J. Quinney College of Law. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a reaction to the president-declared monuments,鈥� he says. 鈥淭his is a question of their voice being drowned out by distant federal bureaucrats. That鈥檚 the narrative at least.鈥�

At , the federal government controls more land in Utah than in Alaska or Wyoming (61.3 and 48.4, respectively). Utah congress members, like the Trump administration, have made it pretty clear that they see the value of public land in what can be extracted from it. So Ruple says Lee鈥檚 attempt to stop monuments in Utah is 鈥渕aking sure that lands don鈥檛 get taken off the table for mining and gas.鈥�

Lee鈥檚 office disagrees with that take. Carroll, Lee鈥檚 communications director, says the bill is about putting Utah decisions in the hands of Utahns. 鈥淲hat has to be stressed is we鈥檙e not talking about undoing Zion or undoing the national parks. We鈥檙e talking about a bunch of Bureau of Land Management land that is not visited by that many people,鈥� he says. (Nearly 1 million people visited Grand Staircase-Escalante in 2014. By way of comparison, Utah鈥檚 famous Arches National Park saw that year.)

Some of Lee鈥檚 were oil and gas companies, , and he is also representing anti鈥損ublic lands Tea Party interests. Lee was given a check for more than $111,000 during his campaign from Kirkham Motorsports鈥攚hose owner said during his own that he was in complete support of opening up public lands to the extraction industry.

Lee, too, is a land-transfer advocate. 鈥淲hen it comes to federal parks that already exist, we don鈥檛 think those need to be transferred to state control,鈥� Carroll says. 鈥淏ut when it comes to the other millions of acres that haven鈥檛 been designated yet, that are not forests or not monuments, we do think that should be transferred to local control.鈥�

And from the Outdoor Industry Association that, compared with the extraction industry, three times as many Utah jobs depend on the outdoor recreation opportunities provided by Utah public lands, Lee writes in a statement on his website, 鈥淩ural Americans want what all Americans want: a dignified decent-paying job, a family to love and support, and a healthy community whose future is determined by local residents鈥攏ot their self-styled betters thousands of miles away.鈥�

鈥淯tah should embrace tourism,鈥� Carroll tells 国产吃瓜黑料. 鈥淏ut tourism can鈥檛 be the only focus.鈥�

If there are plenty of jobs in Utah because of monuments, then maybe it鈥檚 the last part of Lee鈥檚 statement that tips his hand鈥攖hat this is about Utahns deciding what鈥檚 good for Utah. When I ask Carroll, he says that鈥檚 exactly right.

鈥淵ou can have lots of arguments [if monuments are] good for the state of Utah or bad,鈥� says Klass, the law professor. 鈥淚t has certainly helped the tourism industry but is less good for extractive industries. So who gets to decide what鈥檚 good for the state of Utah?鈥�

Trump has shown he鈥檚 willing and even an advocate for public lands rollbacks. But Ruple thinks the president might hedge at signing the PURE Act, because while it does fit into his M.O. for putting profits over conservation, it cuts sharply against his love of his own authority. 鈥淚 think that鈥檚 an interesting question,鈥� Ruple says. 鈥淲ould a president sign a bill that limits his own power?鈥�

The post If Mike Lee Has His Way, Utah Won’t Get More Monuments appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Kate Kelly was cautiously optimistic when President Donald Trump nominated Ryan Zinke to head the Department of the Interior in March. The former DOI communications director under secretary Sally Jewell told me that many interior staffers were excited about this cowboy from Montana who spoke of native sovereignty and said he opposed selling public lands.

Kelly鈥檚 optimism faded as Zinke鈥檚 team transitioned into office. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very clear there鈥檚 a huge gap between his rhetoric and reality,鈥� she says. (Kelly, as a political appointee of Barack Obama, tendered her resignation under the Trump Administration, and now works as the public lands director for the Center for American Progress). 鈥淸Zinke has] definitely put a lot of work into the facade of being a Westerner, but his actions appear to betray these Western roots.鈥�

After months of interviewing past and present DOI staff (most of whom asked not to be named for fear of losing their jobs), I got the distinct impression that Zinke is the captain of a ship that isn鈥檛 sinking鈥攊t鈥檚 just聽floundering. Zinke has ordered that a new course of direction聽be set, but no one鈥檚 at the helm steering. Meanwhile the people at the oars are flailing, treading聽water with no forward progress. Many people I spoke with聽said the department is critically understaffed, with too few senior leaders to make effective policy changes. And when policy changes do happen, the execution is haphazard at best.

Take climate change research, for instance. 鈥淎ll that outreach work, even scientists speaking at conferences, has stopped,鈥� says Joel Clement, who served as a senior scientist and policy expert in the DOI for seven years, mainly focusing on efforts to fight climate-change. Most non-federal advisory committees that provide expert advice are 鈥渙n ice,鈥� he says, while the U.S.G.S. Climate Science Centers 鈥渁re on pins and needles waiting to see how they will be treated in the budget.鈥澛燗fter Zinke鈥檚 appointment, Clement found himself re-assigned to an accounting position in the Office of Natural Resources, where he would be in charge of approving, among other things, oil and gas leases. In October, , citing poor leadership, wasted taxpayer dollars, and climate-change denial as his reasons for leaving.

He鈥檚 not the only one wary of the new leadership. In June, Zinke proposed slashing 4,000 employees鈥�. Later that month, Michael Nedd, acting deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, sent a letter to employees indicating that up to 1,000 of those jobs could be cut from the BLM. Then in September, Zinke infamously After that, Clement says, morale plummeted to an all-time low. 鈥淪taff are openly mocking the Secretary鈥檚 ethical struggles and lack of respect for both mission and career staff,鈥� he says.听

The department had already been grappling with a charged workplace environment. Last week, the Federal Consulting Group and the CFI Group released the, which gives a sense of how DOI employees felt before Zinke took over. More than 21,300 people鈥攁 third of the department鈥檚 staff鈥攔eported that they had experienced some type of harassment at work in the previous year. Numbers across all of Interior鈥檚 departments were high: 19 percent of National Park Service employees said they experienced gender-based harassment; nearly 25 percent of Office of the Special Trustee employees reported racial discrimination; and 40 percent of employees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs said they had experienced some sort of harassment.

Earlier this fall, Zinke鈥檚 deputy secretary David Bernhardt who had been accused of harassment and misconduct. 鈥淚 share these examples because you need to know that your leadership is listening,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淲e will hold people accountable when we are informed that they have failed in their duties and obligations.鈥�

Former employees said emails like these, instead of being reassuring, made employees more fearful, with a threatening note that seemed to echo Zinke鈥檚 exhortations for loyalty. In the same email, Bernhardt reprimanded those who strayed聽from their oath of office as public servants: 聽

I am troubled that there is not a universal sense in the Department of the Interior (Department) that those few employees who have failed to uphold these standards are appropriately being held accountable. Please be assured, that I am committed to ensuring that leaders at all levels of the Department are, themselves, ensuring that legally sound, measured, and decisive action is being taken.

In the midst of all his talk of slashing jobs, Zinke鈥攚ith nine months as secretary鈥攈as yet to fill several positions that require Senate confirmation. There have been no nominees for some of the department鈥檚 most key positions: the directors of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of US Fish and Wildlife, the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, according to a .

That鈥檚 not to say the department is totally leaderless, says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Employees 鈥渁re getting direction. But they鈥檙e not getting direction from people that have any on-the-ground experience in the agency,鈥� he says. And without directors of several departments, it leaves their missions a state of limbo. 鈥淭he mission of the park service: who鈥檚 supposed to be in charge of keeping that secure? We don鈥檛 know,鈥� he says.

The problem will likely聽only get worse. According to a report by the United States Government Accountability Office, over 30 percent of Interior employees will be retirement-eligible in 2018. Some worry that people may choose to retire, leaving the DOI in a lurch to find qualified people. 鈥淥ne of the issues we were working on and struggling with was making sure we were hiring great talent to make sure there wasn鈥檛 a huge drop-off of experienced people in a few years,鈥� Kelly, the former DOI communications director, says.

But the biggest issue may be that the top echelon of leadership doesn't know how to affect policy change, said one of my聽contacts, who wished to remain anonymous. The DOI leadership isn鈥檛 adding to the body of law that governs how we use America鈥檚 lands and resources, they said. They don鈥檛 appear to be giving any thought to it. “The objectives of the administration aren鈥檛 even being achieved. It鈥檚 like they鈥檙e tying their own shoelaces together and they鈥檙e upset when they trip and fall,鈥� my source said. 鈥淵ou have to understand that there aren鈥檛 a bunch of obstructionists in the department鈥e鈥檙e all standing there with an oar waiting for someone to let us row.”

Kelly, the former DOI communications director, was even blunter. 鈥淲hat we鈥檙e seeing is a lot of solutions in search of a problem. And a lot of policies that appear to be driven by vindictiveness.鈥� Her remark reminded me of a comment I saw when I read some of the millions of public statements that came in during the national monuments review this spring. It was simple and to the point:

“I spent most of 2017 expecting that any minute the people who understood policy development and understood the way that government works were going to walk through the door,鈥� said my anonymous source. 鈥淎nd they just never come.”

The post Inside Ryan Zinke’s Department of the Interior appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

National monuments aren鈥檛 created overnight. Just ask Dave Willis, a 65-year-old outdoorsman in Southern Oregon who started advocating for protection of the area now known as聽聽when he was 30 years old. By the time President Bill Clinton finally designated 52,947-acre Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, in 2000, Willis had already been fighting for its creation for 17 years.听

鈥淒ave, my God, that guy has devoted his life to this,鈥� says Michael Parker, a biologist at , who joined聽Willis in advocating for the monument in 1994.听

So when Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommended last month that President Donald Trump shrink Cascade-Siskiyou, along with at least two other national monuments in Utah, Willis was understandably devastated. It was a blow to thirty years of work, of building partnerships between local cities, towns, senators, and governors. While other advocates have disappeared鈥攕ome have lost interest, several have died鈥擶illis has arguably remained the most consistent voice in favor of Cascade-Siskiyou.听

Willis鈥檚 fight started in a January 1983 public meeting in Medford, Oregon. Willis鈥攁 young mountaineer from Corvallis who鈥檇 lost both of his hands and most of his feet to frostbite during a climb up Denali, and who considered the area along the border between Oregon and California his backyard鈥攁rgued over the din of voices from ranchers, timber companies, and off-road-vehicle enthusiasts聽to preserve the area鈥檚 biodiversity. 鈥淚 was just a concerned citizen,鈥� he told me on the morning of his 65th birthday鈥攖he day after Zinke鈥檚 announcement. 鈥淚t was where I lived.鈥澛�

For years, Willis wrote letters and called legislators, encouraging them to protect the 鈥渓ost world,鈥� as he called it. Much of his work centered around assuaging the concerns of opponents, chief among them the ranching community. He and other advocates helped raise over $1 million to pay ranchers to donate their grazing leases to the . He also focused on putting the size of the proposed monument in context: the 53,000-odd acres advocates wanted set aside was relatively conservative compared to other national monuments that spanned millions of acres, like 1.9-million Grand Staircase-Escalante and 1.6-million Mojave Trail.听

Willis鈥檚 advocacy drew other like-minded Southern Oregonians into its orbit. 鈥淒ave is definitely the leader聽of the monument fight,鈥� says Susan Jane Brown, a staff attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. 鈥淭he rest of us just line up and try to keep up with him.鈥澛�

Willis wasn鈥檛 the only one who saw the region as special, which made recruiting other supporters easy. Scientists were especially easy to convince, as the region is a place of extreme and unique biodiversity. The current Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument sits in the corridor where the Cascade, Klamath-Siskiyou, and Klamath mountains converge. It聽is home to an enormous number of native species of fish, frogs, moths, butterflies, and plants. 鈥淒escribing this area鈥檚 outstanding biodiversity is like looking through聽a kaleidoscope,鈥� says Evan Frost, an ecologist with . 鈥淔rom every angle one explores this area, the monument鈥檚 ecological riches are seen in unexpected ways.鈥�

Jack Williams was聽a Ph.D student at Oregon State University when he was wooed by the natural bounty in the 1980s. He started studying the Upper Klamath Basin Redband Trout, a fish native to Jenny Creek, which now sets the eastern border of the monument. Williams says he was fascinated by 鈥渢his little diverse ecosystem that was right in my backyard.鈥� 聽

Willis, Williams, and other advocates continued to pressure legislators and to tell the story of the area鈥檚 scientific potential. But when Clinton finally made the official designation, in June 2000, Willis didn鈥檛 throw a victory party. He told the Oregonian in June 2000 that, finally, he would 鈥渢ake a nap and do my taxes.鈥� He also said that the borders were inadequate:聽climate change and private development would require more space to adequately protect the region鈥檚 resources. The Oregonian reporter asked a local BLM field manager at the time if he would see less of Willis after the 2000 expansion. 鈥淥h heaven鈥檚 no,鈥� the man replied. 鈥淗e doesn鈥檛 give up.鈥�

He didn鈥檛, and neither did scientists like Williams and Parker, of Southern Oregon University. In late January 2011鈥攔oughly 11 years after Clinton established the monument鈥攖hey were a part of a group of 15 scientists from a variety of fields who convened at Southern Oregon University to discuss the area鈥檚 boundaries. 鈥淭hey asked themselves the question whether the original boundaries of the monument protected what the proclamation intended to protect,鈥� Willis says. The group evaluated how private development, commodity use on public land, and鈥攊mportantly鈥攃limate change would affect the area, and concluded that 鈥渢he species that the monument was established to protect were endangered if the monument wasn鈥檛 expanded.鈥� Four years later, Obama added an additional 48,000 acres.听

The threat of climate change was one of several reasons聽the monument was expanded;聽some say that it could now be its undoing. The Trump Administration has failed to acknowledge the realities of climate change, most notably by pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement in June. If the Cascade-Siskiyou鈥檚 expansion had to do with climate change鈥攅ven in part鈥攃ould that be the reason enough for Zinke鈥檚 suggestion to shrink it?

鈥淚 think the administration probably has a variety of reasons they鈥檇 like to see the boundary rolled back on the Cascade-Siskiyou,鈥� Williams says. 鈥淚鈥檓 sure they鈥檙e not quite as sensitive to the arguments on biodiversity and climate change because they鈥檙e not as important to them.鈥�

Parker agrees. 鈥淚t鈥檚 probably just one more check in a column, whatever their columns are in the administration,鈥� he says. 鈥溾€楥limate change?聽Let鈥檚 add that to the list of why we鈥檙e going after this one.鈥欌€�

Willis fears the effort to shrink this place comes down to 鈥減ure partisan politics.鈥� It鈥檚 a disheartening take, but Willis says he鈥檒l keep going. This battle was never his alone. More than ever, he talks about allies he鈥檒l continue to recruit to stick up for this place.

鈥淲e will oppose in court any attempted reduction of聽Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument鈥檚 boundaries and/or protections,鈥� he told me.听

I wish him happy birthday as we say our goodbyes over the phone.

鈥淚 wish it was happy,鈥� he says.

Willis is ready, this time, for a fight.

The post The Fight for Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

In April, President Donald Trump charged his public lands deputy, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, with reviewing 27 of our national monuments. Since then, the ex-Navy SEAL鈥攁 guy who rocks a and through Washington鈥攈as traveled the country examining which monuments are worthy of keeping and which, in Trump鈥檚 words, are just 鈥渁nother egregious use of government power鈥� and should be reduced or eliminated.

Bears Ears ended up on the latter list: in June, Zinke recommended Trump shrink the 1.5-million-acre reserve. But others have avoided the chopping block, including Washington鈥檚 Hanford Reach, Idaho鈥檚 Craters of the Moon, Arizona鈥檚 Grand Canyon-Parashant, California鈥檚 Sand to Snow, Colorado鈥檚 Canyons of the Ancients, and Montana鈥檚 Upper Missouri River Breaks. The Secretary鈥檚 answer on the remaining monuments is due Thursday.

The whole process has been murky, with the DOI giving little indication about why Zinke has pardoned some monuments and not others. (The department didn鈥檛聽respond to a聽request for comment for this story.) The Trump administration asked for public comments of the review鈥攁nd received over two million鈥攂ut it鈥檚 unclear how these are going to be taken into account.

Meanwhile,聽some writers聽are , alleging that national monuments “restrict access, weaken local economies, corrode rural communities,” and imploring Trump and Zinke use the Antiquities Act correctly, not for “political gamesmanship, outdoor recreation, climate change.”聽

With talk like this, we decided to take聽on the top four myths that have been bandied about over the past five months and debunk聽them.

#1. No opportunities were provided to comment on the national monuments before they were designated.

In no case did local residents near any of these areas wake up one day to a new national monument in their backyards. Each area was designated after long periods of deliberation, meetings, letter-writing campaigns, and newspaper editorials.

Take the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, an 86,774-acre swath of wilderness that runs from the southwestern part of Oregon into Northern California. Discussions to protect the area started as early as January 1983. A January 7, 1983 article in the Medford Mail Tribune chronicled opposing views from meetings held over monument designation. (鈥淚deas Vary On Managing BLM Wilderness Study Area,鈥� read the headline.) The conversation continued throughout the next two decades: TIME Magazine ran an article in 1999, while the听翱谤别驳辞苍颈补苍 advocated for protection the next year.

By the time President Bill Clinton designated the area as a monument in the summer of 2000, locals had been providing comments鈥攎ostly positive鈥攐n their thoughts about federal protection for 17 years.听

#2. Only environmentalists support national monuments.

Monuments across the country have widespread support from a variety of groups. Take business groups. In August, small-business owners from five states convened in Montana to advocate for preserving monuments. Why? They鈥檙e driving local economies. 鈥淭his isn鈥檛 just a bleeding heart wanting to save public land for the sake of the land itself,鈥� Dan Irion, the co-owner of Taos Mesa Brewing in Taos, New Mexico, . 鈥淧reserving public lands in the west in general is absolutely vital and necessary to the economic sustainability of our communities out west.鈥� Joseph Catlett, owner of a burger joint in Escalante, Utah, near Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the designation of that monument has made his town of 850 people thrive as other western communities disappear.

Then there are the tribal governments that have come out in favor of preserving monuments, including聽Utah鈥檚 Bears Ears, possibly the most politically contentious monument on Zinke鈥檚 list. 鈥淲e advocated for the Bears Ears National Monument, and we remain strongly committed to its defense,鈥� from the Hopi, Navajo, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni Tribal governments.

Finally, there are the hunting and sportspeople鈥檚 groups that have pressured Zinke to stand up for public lands 鈥�.鈥� Of anyone, they seem to have the tightest hold on the Secretary鈥檚 ear.听

#3. There鈥檚 no local support for national monuments.

Evidence shows that more locals support monuments than not. The聽, a Colorado-based聽advocacy group, analyzed a sampling of the two million comments that came in about monuments and .

Even locals who didn鈥檛 initially support the monuments have often come around. One such example is Michael Madore, a town councilman in Millinocket, Maine. When former President Barack Obama first proposed setting aside 87,563 acres of mountainous wilderness to become Maine鈥檚 Katahdin Woods and Waters, Madore called it a 鈥渇oolish dream鈥� that he thought would threaten industrial jobs in the area by increasing environmental regulations. But since the monument was designated last summer by the Obama administration, Madore has come around. 鈥淚 won鈥檛 say I鈥檝e totally embraced it, but I do see it as a part of an economic puzzle that can be beneficial to the town,鈥� he told me the phone last week. 鈥淲e鈥檙e noticing some minimal but tangible evidence the monument is helping.鈥�
听听
Then Trump鈥檚 monument review 鈥渟tirred a pot that had been left alone for awhile,鈥� Madore says. He says Zinke talked to some locals about the monument, but not to town officials like him. The Secretary's visit 鈥渄id more harm than good,鈥� Madore says. 鈥淚t just stirred up all those old feelings again. The no-park people started putting signs in their yards again. The park people started putting editorials in the local papers. It was more divisive than it was healing.鈥�

#4. All Republicans believe national monuments should be reduced or eliminated.

While the GOP鈥檚 official platform, led by people like Zinke and Utah Representative Rob Bishop, is to reduce federal management of our public lands, there are individual Republicans who want to protect them.

In Colorado, two Republican lawmakers to take the state鈥檚 176,000-acre Canyons of the Ancients off the list of monuments up for review. 鈥淭he designation of Canyons is an example of what the Antiquities Act was intended to do,鈥� wrote Senator Cory Gardner and Representative Scott Tipton to Zinke in May. The Republican lawmakers went on to say that oftentimes administrations don鈥檛 think about the impact designations, which bring in tourists and their money, can have on municipalities. The letter worked: by July, Canyons of the Ancients was of monuments on Zinke鈥檚 chopping block.

Seventeen house Republicans piped up send to Zinke in June about the monument review. The group advocated for most monuments to be rolled back, but they did advocate that some monuments鈥攍ike Sand to Snow鈥攕tay as-is. In August, Zinke announced Sand to Snow was off the review list.听

In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins 聽that while the Katahdin Woods and Waters designation process “could have been greatly improved, it is time to put that dispute behind us. I believe that any effort to rescind the designation at this point would be a mistake.鈥�

The post Four Lies We鈥檝e Been Told About National Monuments appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Just 64 days after newly minted Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke rode a horse to the White House for his first day on the job, the Department of the Interior announced it would conduct a thorough review of 27 national monuments. By early June, Zinke had already that recommended .

If Zinke鈥檚 proposal to reduce the size of Bears Ears鈥攁nd the monument review itself鈥攚as unprecedented, so is the massive invitation to the American public that came with the review. The DOI opened Regulations.gov, telling people to speak their minds about the monuments under question and the effects of the Antiquities Act, which the president may wield without consulting the public.

By the morning of June 27, with two weeks remaining until the deadline, more than 396,000 comments had been submitted. 鈥淢ust we destroy everything? Can鈥檛 we simply have beautiful, natural spaces that everyone can enjoy at any time during their life?鈥� . 鈥淚 support Rescinding Bears Ears National Monument,鈥� , a Native American resident of Montezuma Creek, Utah. He expanded in an email to 国产吃瓜黑料: 鈥淲e would like to enjoy living the way we鈥檝e always have, without the need of an oppressive BLM-run national monument which would be no different than our questionable relationship with the government鈥檚 Bureau of Indian Affairs.鈥�

As of publication, comments are still flooding into Regulations.gov in tidal waves of several thousand per day, and the DOI is also accepting snail-mail comments. But what exactly happens to all that feedback?

The first step: Someone will read every comment. It鈥檚 reasonable to wonder if Zinke has enough staff to do so. As of this publication, of the 558 key governmental positions in the executive branch, 409 had yet to have someone nominated to fill them. , in the DOI alone, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey had no nominees.

No additional people were hired to sift through comments, says Heather Swift, press secretary for the DOI. She says that 鈥渁 team of approximately 20 existing employees from various bureaus鈥� will read them. If the commenting continues at a steady pace of 5,000 per day until commenting closes on July 10, there will be more than 400,000 comments to read. That means each of those 20 employees will have to read 15,000 comments before the final report is released on August 24.

鈥淲e fully expect鈥攁nd they are on pace鈥攖o go through all of the comments in time for the Secretary to have all the information before he makes his final decisions,鈥� Swift says. 鈥淓ach comment counts equally.鈥� So comments like 鈥溌燿id !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!鈥� and 鈥溾€� will carry the same weight as the pleas for preservation and conservation.

Then, each comment will likely be tallied depending on whether it鈥檚 a vote for or against the review. 鈥淢any of the comments are general and say something along the lines of 鈥業 like monuments鈥� or 鈥業 don鈥檛 like monuments,鈥欌€� Swift says. 鈥淭hose will be counted, of course,鈥� but the DOI will also note the comments that come in for each specific monument.

Swift can鈥檛 yet say how the final tally will be presented鈥攊f officials will simply get a final count of 鈥渇or鈥� and 鈥渁gainst鈥� comments, or if they will see particularly poignant comments as well. Because Zinke has discretion when making his decision, it鈥檚 not necessarily just a popularity vote. Many are putting strategy into making their comment stand out and resonate with him. Hundreds of commenters are invoking the spirit and policies of Theodore Roosevelt, who created the 111 years ago. 鈥淭hese monuments are a legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. He and all fifteen subsequent presidents鈥攐f both parties鈥攈ave recognized the need and value of protecting these public lands,鈥� . 鈥淚 urge you to uphold Roosevelt鈥檚 legacy and maintain these monuments for current and future generations.鈥�

Joel Webster, director of western lands at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, sees this as perhaps the best appeal. 鈥淶inke sees Theodore Roosevelt as a figure in American history he looks up to. I think it鈥檚 important to draw that connection,鈥� he says. 鈥淗e鈥檚 got a picture of Theodore Roosevelt in his office that he brings from office to office.鈥� In fact, Zinke has been called a 鈥溾€� after hashtagging his with 鈥�#TeddyRoosevelt & #PublicLands fan.鈥�

Conservation organizations have also encouraged members to share deeply personal stories rather than hollow letters of support. Citizens have flooded Zinke鈥檚 office with postcards donning photographs of the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument and the Giant Sequoias of Northern California. On one, a child鈥檚 scrawled handwriting begged Zinke to leave the monuments as is. 鈥淲e do not want oil,鈥� . 鈥淲e need good plants.鈥� People shared memories of family vacations and honeymoons, of vision quests and adventures, of being children and feeding chipmunks. They told Zinke that, as Americans, there is a need for quiet and sanctuary in a world where 鈥�.鈥�

Even with the volume and fervor of responses, public comments are just one factor weighing Zinke鈥檚 final decision. He鈥檒l also consider information gathered during on-the-ground monument tours and meetings with tribal representatives, local officials, historic preservation experts, and other stakeholders. The DOI, too, is holding its own meetings. In May, Swift says the acting deputy secretary 鈥渉eld a four-hour meeting with tribal officials on Bears Ears and other monuments,鈥� setting up a 鈥渟pecialized channel for tribal input via monument listening sessions.鈥�

John Gale, conservation director at , says the whole premise of this review process is flawed: Each of the monuments under review already underwent robust approval processes, including public listening sessions and garnering support of locals, congressmen, and senators. 鈥淭he argument that they didn鈥檛 get an opportunity to be vetted publicly is really a false claim,鈥� Gale says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 just an excuse for trying to unravel what has already become a really fantastic contribution to our national legacy.鈥�

Or as , destroying that legacy 鈥渋s unconscionable鈥ike cutting off some stars from the American flag.鈥�

The post Over 1 Million Comments About the National Monument Review Are In. What Now? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

On Wednesday, Utah Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz聽responded to public outcry and dropped , which sought to sell off millions of acres of public land across the West. But a similar, lesser-known bill to gut public land protections, which Chaffetz introduced alongside H.R.621 on January 24,聽is still on the table.

Dubbed 鈥渢he Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act,鈥� the bill proposes stripping the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management of its law enforcement powers. Both organizations employ uniformed rangers and criminal investigators, who enforce laws and investigate a whole host of issues on federal land: mineral resource theft, dumping of hazardous materials, vandalism of archeological areas, theft of artifacts and timber, and wild land arson, among other crimes. Opponents of 622聽say that federal law enforcement officers also help protect species and habitats by deterring illegal off-highway vehicle use, patrolling big game habitats, and curbing waterway pollution.

With 622, Chaffetz appears to be ripping a page from the anti-public lands chapter of the Bundy Family playbook. The Bundy Family, widely known for it鈥檚 highly publicized 2014 standoff with Bureau of Land Management agents on its Nevada cattle ranch, believes federal agencies should totally cede control of America鈥檚 public lands to local counties. That was the point that Ammon and Ryan Bundy, sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, drove home last year as they led a group of armed men in the highly-publicized 41-day takeover of southeastern Oregon鈥檚 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. At press conferences, that by controlling land at the local level, counties could decide whether 鈥渢o get the logger back to logging, to get the rancher back to ranching, to get the miner back to mining.鈥�

What Chaffetz and friends are proposing with 622鈥攚hich Chaffetz after the Malheur occupation鈥攃ould have been written by Ammon Bundy himself: get the enforcement of public lands out of the hands of the feds, and into the hands of locals. 鈥淔ederal agencies do not enjoy the same level of trust and respect as local law enforcement,鈥� Chaffetz with other members of the Utah delegation last March. 鈥淭his legislation will help deescalate conflicts between law enforcement and local residents while improving transparency and accountability.鈥� Policing functions are a 鈥渄istraction鈥� for BLM and Forest Service employees, the statement said. 鈥淭his is a win all around.”

That鈥檚 not how environmental and conservation groups see it. Conservationists say taking away the law enforcement role from BLM and Forest Service officers is a part of a trend by GOP representatives to 鈥渄efund our public lands, villainize public servants who are managing these lands, and in cases like this remove their ability to do their job,鈥� says Brent Fenty, executive director of , an organization devoted to protecting the health of the state鈥檚 deserts. (BLM and Forest Service contacts refused to comment for this story, citing pending litigation.)

But here鈥檚 the scary part: what Chaffetz is proposing is already happening in some Oregon counties.

In Grant County, that Sheriff Glenn Palmer, a 聽who has designated his own militia and who supported the Bundy occupation, transferred the patrolling of Forest Service roads and campgrounds to local deputies, . 鈥淭here is a general mistrust of the federal government by people of this County, State and Nation,鈥� Palmer wrote in a 2011 letter to the director of a national forest located in Grant county. 鈥淲ithin the confines of Grand County, Oregon, the duties and responsibility of law enforcement will rest with the County Sheriff and his designees.鈥�

If 622 passed, guys like Palmer would be 鈥渋n charge of enforcing environmental rules, protecting endangered species, and protecting the rights of hikers,鈥� says Steve Pedery, conservation director of , a group working to protect Oregon forests and waterways. 鈥淭hat doesn't seem like a very good idea.鈥�

The post The Plan to Stop Federal Law Enforcement of Public Lands appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Last month鈥檚 acquittal of seven members聽of the armed occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon聽caused jaws to drop all over the country. Environmentalists, experts on extremism, legal scholars, and even the defense attorneys of the accused couldn鈥檛 believe it. 鈥淚n no uncertain terms, the acquittal was tantamount to a disaster,鈥� says Ryan Lenz, a senior writer for the , which monitors radical groups in the U.S. 鈥淭he message that jury sent was, 鈥榊ou can take a bunch of heavily armed men, take over a federal building, make demands, and threaten violence if those demands are not met, and get away with it.鈥欌€�

The question is: Could this set a precedent for more armed takeovers around the U.S.?

Legally, the answer's no. 鈥淛ury verdicts don鈥檛 provide a lot of precedents,鈥� says Margaret Paris, a University of Oregon law professor who specializes in criminal law. Juries can ignore the law in their reasoning and verdicts. 鈥淭hey have a locked door between them and the rest of the world,鈥� she says. Precedent-setting cases are typically those decided by a judge, whose rationale is then on record.

The verdict, of course, doesn鈥檛 change the government鈥檚 ability to own land鈥攁s many Malheur occupiers and their supporters have mistakenly argued. But it has galvanized the right-wing bloc of Americans who believe that the federal government can鈥檛 rightfully own land and it鈥檚聽emboldening the Bundys to threaten more armed occupations around the West.

Five days after the trial ended, Ryan Bundy that if the federal government moved forward with bestowing national-monument status on Nevada鈥檚 Gold Butte area鈥攁 350,000-acre swath of desert filled with archeological sites adjacent to聽his father鈥檚 ranch鈥攈is supporters might initiate another Malheur-like display of force. 鈥淚f the government won鈥檛 restrain itself, whatever happens is their own fault,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he government should be scared. They are in the wrong. The land does not belong to the government.鈥�

In Oregon, that the Owyhee Canyonlands, which many call 鈥淥regon鈥檚 Grand Canyon,鈥� may be the Bundys鈥� next target. Since last year, groups like the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) and聽Keen footwear have聽been pushing President Obama to declare the area a national monument. But many ranchers in the state oppose聽that action. In May, they filled聽the capitol building聽to tell legislators a monument could put them out of business. The idea of an Owyhee monument spooked some sheriffs in Oregon: in May, 聽that he was 鈥渃oncerned about people from outside the county who will come with their own agendas鈥� if the federal land was protected there.听

The not-so-subtle hints of potential aggression have聽some public lands workers worried for their safety. 鈥淚鈥檓 deeply concerned about the political climate for people who work on national wildlife refuges,鈥� says conservation director Steve聽Pedery. 鈥淚 think that is the real danger out of this.鈥�

U.S. Fish and聽Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe wrote in an email to 国产吃瓜黑料 that he is 鈥渄isappointed and concerned about the safety of the men and women we send out to provide American conservation.鈥� He said his agency is 鈥渢aking steps to enhance security and safety protocols at our facilities,鈥� but wouldn鈥檛 share specific details.

In addition to the Bundy鈥檚 acquittal, the election of Donald Trump鈥攁 candidate supported by many Patriot聽and militia groups, and one聽 鈥渢o get rid of鈥� the Environmental Protection Agency鈥攆urther underscores the potential for聽more Malheur-like occupations. 鈥淭here is a chunk of the population that [thinks] if they can鈥檛 get what they want, it鈥檚 acceptable to threaten violence,鈥� Pedery says.

But despite what he calls a 鈥渨orrisome鈥� acquittal, Brent Fenty, executive director of ONDA, which supported the movement to turn the Owyhee Canyonlands聽into a monument, says that environmentalists shouldn鈥檛 walk on eggshells just 鈥渂ecause a few people tried to take over a wildlife refuge. This, if anything, has been a wake-up call to Americans鈥攚ho clearly do love their public lands鈥攖hat they can鈥檛 take their public lands for granted. They鈥檇 better stand up.鈥�

The jury may have found the Bundys not guilty, but 鈥淥regonians and Americans are outraged by what happened at the Malheur Refuge,鈥� he聽says. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 want intimidation or harassment to effect decision making.鈥�

Fenty believes the聽acquittal just proved that the government didn鈥檛 argue its case well. 鈥淚 think to not make the decisions that need to be made because of the prospect of something like the Malheur occupation is unacceptable,鈥� he says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not how democracy works. You do not reward bullies.鈥�

The post Get Ready for More Armed Standoffs on Public Land appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The most successful U.S. companies may soon feature workers who favor running shoes over high heels, sunlit standing desks over cubicle labyrinths, and bicycle-only parking garages. Why would corporations adopt these types of progressive amenities? Simply put: it鈥檚 good for business.

The best evidence is a new government-supported workplace certification program designed to make workers happier, healthier, and more productive. Unveiled this fall by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the General Services Administration (GSA), it鈥檚 a scorecard that employers can voluntarily use to assess how their office space affects workers鈥� collective well-being. The program is called Fitwel鈥攁 nod to the philosophy that fitter people make for fitter companies.

鈥淥ffice design is often the silent partner鈥� of successful businesses, says Leigh Stringer, a wellness design specialist and author of . 鈥淚t influences and nudges us in ways you can鈥檛 predict. There are so many things that really impact not only how we interact and collaborate but also our performance.鈥�

Fitwel, which the CDC tested in 89 public office buildings over the past five years, compiles and crunches 63 different beneficial variables, like the availability of healthy food options in a workplace cafeteria. Each factor is weighed for its potential impact on employee health and the company overall.

And鈥攕urprise!鈥攕ome of the most beneficial things a company can do for its workers revolve around the outdoor experience. On-site gyms, bike storage, and locker rooms will improve a building鈥檚 Fitwel score, but an office that encourages people to get outside between meetings or even take a walking meeting on a nearby trail is going to have healthier employees, Stringer says.

鈥淔or millions of years, that was our office. Our workspace was outdoors,鈥� Stringer says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 only for the last few centuries that we鈥檝e worked indoors.鈥� Providing vegetable gardens or quiet, restorative outdoor spaces are a plus. 鈥淭hings like that are really restorative psychologically for the constant stress that we feel,鈥� Stringer says.

Of course, not every office is next door to a beautiful vista or hiking trail, and there isn鈥檛 always space for tomato plants. But even 鈥渇ake nature,鈥� as Stringer calls it鈥攆orest scenes plastered across walls, water features, plant displays鈥攃reates a soothing, therapeutic effect on employees. A business can also ratchet up its score by facilitating a more nurturing environment within office walls. A designated lactation room for nursing mothers, for example, is proven to 鈥渋ncrease productivity鈥� and decrease 鈥渁bsenteeism to care for sick children,鈥� Frank says.

Lighting is also crucial. that quality lighting can improve employees鈥� cognition and directly affect mood. Bad lighting, however, can disrupt a person鈥檚 circadian rhythm. According to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, interrupting that natural process can cause sleep disorders, depression, and obesity. 鈥淟ighting can shape the look and feel of a room and the behavior in a room,鈥� Stringer says.

Ultimately, Fitwel is a referendum on how we interact with our workspaces. There鈥檚 a 鈥渟trong tie between occupant health and productivity,鈥� says Joanna Frank, executive director of the Center for Active Design. In short, if you improve the health of employees, you improve business.

Recent studies have shown that not only is it smart for companies to invest in worker health, but it鈥檚 also smart for investors to buy stock in companies that foster employees well-being. published by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that companies with award-winning wellness programs likely found increased value on the S&P 500. 鈥淚t is鈥eartening to discover that businesses that truly do well for their workers also do well for their investors,鈥� the study reads.

鈥淧eople are looking for something new,鈥� Stringer says. 鈥淭here must be another way to work.鈥�

The post Your Future Office Will Be Outdoors appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Alex White is living the life you鈥檝e always wanted: he鈥檚 a 31-year-old world traveler, a guy who swings off the side of sailboats and goes whitewater rafting in Costa Rica and Patagonia鈥檚 Futaleuf煤 River. While that may sound like the profile of a professional adventurer with sponsors and financial backers, that鈥檚 not the case with White. So how does he do it? Nursing.

White is a travel nurse, to be exact. It鈥檚 a gig he says is perfect for anyone who thrives on adrenaline, is calm in the face of stress, and doesn鈥檛 freak out at the sight of broken bones or a little blood. In fact, White says having a long history of outdoor daredeviling has made him better at his job: 鈥淚n both environments, you have to be a problem solver, not a problem causer.鈥�

It鈥檚 a unique profession. Travel nurses take assignments, each ranging from 13 to 26 weeks, all over the country. There鈥檚 a need for nurses practically everywhere, which means they can often choose where they want to live. Plus, according to the nurses聽we talked to for this article, travel nurses often work less and make more than staff RNs. (Salary varies with experience and location, but it鈥檚 safe to say that travel nurses can make well into six figures each year.) White and the other nurses we talked to are happy to be nomads. They鈥檙e the ready-for-anything backpackers of the medical profession鈥攁dventurous types who save lives three days a week, then disappear into the powder or surf until they come back and do it all again.

White has spent the past two years winding his way through New Mexico, most recently taking an assignment at a hospital in Taos, just in time for ski season. He鈥檒l work there 鈥渦ntil the snow stops falling,鈥� and then he鈥檒l decide if he wants to move on.

That鈥檚 also what Lucy Sackbauer told us. She鈥檚 a 26-year-old nurse working in the cardiac ICU at the University of Utah Hospital and the Alta Medical Clinic, right in the Wasatch Mountains. She loves nursing but always wanted adventure to come first in her life. 鈥淚 can鈥檛 imagine working nie-to-five, five days a week, and only being a weekend warrior,鈥� Sackbauer says. 鈥淚 wanted to ski on Tuesdays when the rest of the world was at their desks.鈥�

The path to becoming a travel nurse is similar to that of a registered nurse: you need to obtain an associate degree in nursing, which typically takes between two and fours years, and then work for a year in a hospital setting. When they鈥檙e ready to travel, nurses then work with recruiters who help secure assignments at hospitals and clinics around the world. And guess what? The demand for nurses is expected to skyrocket as baby boomers enter their elderly years. According to a from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. nursing workforce is poised to grow from 2.71 million in 2012 to 3.24 million in 2022.

Most travel nurses work three 12-hour shifts, and then have four days off. But Sackbauer says she stacks her shifts or takes night shifts to get out on the slopes more. 鈥淵ou can also work the night shift, so if it鈥檚 a powder morning, you can ski a run or two before going to bed for the day,鈥� she says.

Travel nursing doesn鈥檛 take nurses just to rural locales. Morgan Matthews, a 32-year-old Colorado-born nurse currently on contract in Santa Fe, worked early in her career at Georgetown University Hospital in the heart of Washington, D.C. She took the assignment to see what it was like to live in a different environment than the one she grew up in. 鈥淚鈥檓 way more of an open-road, mountain person, so living in a city was a new and exciting experience,鈥� Matthews says.

The ER is like a window straight into the core of a community, Matthews says. 鈥淵ou see people at their most vulnerable,鈥� she says. After work, Matthews would go on long jogs past the Jefferson Memorial and the Supreme Court. Then, before she knew it, Matthews was gone: back West, near the mountains, at a hospital in Bountiful, Utah.

Matthews says traveling supports her avid outdoor lifestyle鈥攕he鈥檚 a skier, mountain biker, and trail runner鈥攂ut it also makes her a better nurse. After growing up in Durango and landing her first job there in an ER, she opted to take on travel nursing so she could experience something new. 鈥淵ou can go be immersed in a totally different community than you would ever see yourself living in permanently,鈥� she says.

The nature of the job鈥攖he fast changes, the wide variety of patients鈥攊s an adventure in and of itself. Matthews and others we spoke to say it鈥檚 made them better nurses. These are people who don鈥檛 flinch in the face of danger, who are measured, calm, and unflappable. It鈥檚 what makes them so equipped to handle the stress of the ER. 鈥淲e鈥檙e excited when an ambulance rolls in,鈥� laughs Courtney Crockett, a 30-year-old nurse currently on contract in Kauai.

Crockett, originally from Texas, is another nurse who takes advantage of the adventurous lifestyle the vocation affords. A quick glance at her Instagram account would make anyone reconsider their life choices: photos of her gazing at waterfalls and relaxing under palm trees. Nursing, she says, 鈥渋s like dating cities.鈥�

鈥淚 have been picking assignments based on what kind of lifestyle I want,鈥� Crockett says. 鈥淚 am trying to find a new place to settle without committing.鈥�

But for many, travel nursing is a way to have a career and stay on the road. Matthews is in the process of buying an RV so she can take her home with her around the country, stopping at ski slopes throughout the West in between assignments.

Travel nursing 鈥渁llows you to have a career that you can treat like a job. Or a job you can treat like a career,鈥� White says. 鈥淵ou can clock out and have a completely other lifestyle鈥攚hich is the most important part for me.鈥�

The post The Ultimate 国产吃瓜黑料 Job: Travel Nurse appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

No one expected this.

On Thursday, seven people involved in the six-week-long armed standoff with law enforcement at a wildlife refuge in Oregon earlier this year were acquitted by a jury聽of charges of conspiracy to impede federal workers. Two of the men, brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, were the ringleaders of the occupation, and have been quick to threaten violence and employ weapons to intimidate federal land officials in the past.

I鈥檝e been covering this case since the defendants on January 27. This verdict came as a shock to those of us鈥攋ournalists from around the state鈥攚ho have been paying close attention to the event. How could it be possible that, in a case where occupiers were at a federal refuge and , a jury would acquit?

Even some attorneys for the defendants were flummoxed. 鈥淚鈥檓 speechless,鈥� said Robert Salisbury, counsel for defendant Jeff Banta, as he walked out of the courtroom. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a stunning victory.鈥�

In their closing arguments, the defense team argued that this was a political protest rather than聽a carefully thought-out conspiracy to impede officers. Defense attorney Marcus Mumford聽said that Bundy's “problem wasn't with federal employees鈥攊t was with their employer,” the federal government. One defense attorney characterized the occupation as聽a “Martin Luther King-style sit-in.” Another argued that the guns were there not to intimidate, but to get people around the world to pay attention to their protest. And throughout their closing, they poked at the government's use of nine confidential informants at the refuge鈥攕ix of whom the government refused to identify in court.

By Friday, Juror #4 had come forward with his story. In an email to聽The听翱谤别驳辞苍颈补苍, he said the government simply did a bad job of convincing the jury of the charge: conspiracy. 鈥淚t should be known that all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself鈥攁nd not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淭he air of聽triumphalism聽that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.鈥�”

From the start, it was a case rife with bizarre twists and turns. Four days into deliberations, for example, Juror #11 was sent home after Juror #4 sent a secret note to the judge that #11鈥攚ho had formerly worked for the Bureau of Land Management鈥攚as biased. By Thursday morning, #11 was gone, replaced by an alternate. Verdicts were reached just six hours later.

Moments after the verdict was announced, defense attorney Mumford was by U.S. Marshals. After demanding in animated fashion that his newly acquitted client, Ammon Bundy, be released from jail, Mumford was pounced on by marshals. During the ensuing wrestling match, Judge Anna Brown yelled to evacuate the courtroom. Mumford was cited on charges of disorderly conduct and released later Thursday night. (Bundy and his brother, Ryan, remain behind bars due to pending charges against them in Nevada for a 2014 armed standoff at the family鈥檚 ranch there.)

国产吃瓜黑料 the courthouse, supporters paced the sidewalk, shouting passages from the U.S. Constitution. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why we have Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution!鈥� defendant Shawna Cox shouted. That clause鈥攁nd, by extension, the jury鈥檚 verdict鈥攑roves that the federal government can鈥檛 own land 鈥渆xcept for arsenals, dockyards and stockyards,鈥� Cox said. 鈥淩ead it! Teach it to your children, people!鈥�

Law experts I talked to emphasized this was a victory on conspiracy charges鈥攏ot a reinforcement of their Constitutional interpretation limiting the government's ability to own land. Michael Blumm, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland and a scholar on environmental and public lands laws, says he was 鈥渁stonished鈥� by the jury鈥檚 decision. 鈥淚t really doesn鈥檛 change the underlying law,鈥� Blumm says. The federal government can鈥攁nd obviously does鈥攐wn land. 鈥淭his really isn鈥檛 going to have an effect on the law as it鈥檚 interpreted by courts, because it鈥檚 so clear and it鈥檚 been so clear for so long. But it could have an effect on politics.鈥�

Blumm says any repercussions depend on what happens in the Bundy鈥檚 next case, which is scheduled to go to trial in February. 鈥淚f this jury result and whatever goes on in Nevada next year continues to fuel a political rebellion, that might produce a congressional action under the property clause to dispose of federal public lands,鈥� Blumm says. 鈥淎s far as we know, that鈥檚 certainly a possibility.鈥�

Late Thursday night, supporters outside the courthouse raged on, waiting for David Fry (whom we wrote about earlier this month) to be freed from jail. They danced in the rain with American flags, and chanted, 鈥淣ot guilty!鈥� Defense attorneys ambled over from an after-party and hugged those who stayed. One attorney, Matthew Schindler, said the prosecution simply made 鈥渢actical errors.鈥�

But environmentalists I spent the morning talking with say that despite its professed lack of affirmation, the jury emboldened an already volatile group of people. 鈥淚鈥檓 really worried about federal land managers,鈥� says Kieran Suckling, of the Center for Biological Diversity. 鈥淭he militia thinks it is totally legal to go to a federal facility with guns and take it over and threatened federal employees, and that鈥檚 what they鈥檙e going to do.鈥�

The post How Did the Malheur Occupiers Get Away Scot-Free? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.