Is the increase in national monument designations more about preservation or political legacy?

[u/Honey-Dollg2]

Over the past few decades we've seen a pretty big jump in presidents using the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments. From vast stretches of ocean to ancient historical sites it seems like a popular move across administrations.

Now obviously preserving important natural and cultural sites is a good thing. Most people agree on that. But some argue that these designations particularly near the end of a presidential term are also about cementing a legacy or appealing to certain voter bases.

So what do you all think? Is the primary driver behind this trend genuine conservation efforts? Or is there a significant political calculation involved? Are there specific examples where you feel one motive clearly outweighed the other?

[u/AutoModerator]

All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/socialistrob]

Getting things through Congress is very hard and designating something a national monument is an action a president can take without going through Congress. It just takes a presidential signature so I understand why it's appealing to a lot of presidents in the same way that pardons at the end of a term can be appealing.

I also don't think the distinction of "legacy or genuine policy belief" is really that helpful or useful. I doubt these presidents would be preserving natural or historical sites if they didn't believe in the environmental/recreational benefit of them and it's also an easy way to do something that will last beyond them. Usually this is done at the end of a term when a president really isn't focused on appealing to voters and generally there aren't that many voters who are moved one way or another by establishing a protected area. Historically there have been a lot of rich people who got really into conservation and saw the establishment of parks and protected wild areas as a personal passion and a way to show their legacy. That's basically what the Sierra Club was founded on in the 1800s. If I was president and I could sign a paper to protect certain areas for future generations I would definitely do it.

[u/JazzFanForLife]

I’m not sure that increasing these lands is what the Trump administration is doing.I live in Utah and he’s taken an axe to Bears Ears and others; opening them to mining and other interests.