# Utah's Monuments



## RandomElk16

Hello Forum!

I apologize for being naive on the subject but I want to know, from real Utah outdoorsmen, what you feel the impact will be by reducing Bears Ears, Grand Staircase.


----------



## backcountry

Will be easier and more accurate ideas shared next week after Trump makes official announcement, assuming actual boundary changes are announced. Mostly speculation at this point given several different ideas have been discussed.

A general theme I am concerned about will be wether or not GSENM boundary changes will affect habitat (increased fragmentation) and seasonal corridors/migration of big game, especially on the southeast side of the Plateau/Boulder unit. Some of the proposed boundary changes could impact those issues.

Wait and see.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Backcountry, agreed....and what those boundary changes mean as far as mining and mineral extraction goes.


----------



## Bax*

Here is the latest that was just published a within the last hour: https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46208177&n...-be-cut-by-85-percent-grand-staircase-by-half

I really don't envision a huge change in GSNEM aside from boundary changes. More than anything I feel that it was "right sized".

When you take a step back, federal lands were made a national monument or mammoth proportions. Reducing the size doesn't mean that the land will suddenly be owned by the State of Utah, they will stay in federal control. But I believe that it will make things easier for ranchers to be granted grazing permits, and potentially allow certain industries to grow again.

As far as sportsman access.... I am not sure that things are all that restrictive in the area aside from tag numbers.

I genuinely do not believe that reducing the size of the monuments will suddenly open up the area to strip mining and deplete the land of its resources. But I do believe that it will allow local leadership from the State, County, and Cities more opportunity to provide input on how the land is managed.

I know that many people are cheering the decision, and many are deploring the decision. But I do believe that it was a good middle ground to appease both sides of the argument.

I also believe that locals around GSNEM and BE have the best pulse check on the landscape and how to manage it. They don't want to destroy the land and ruin natural wonders and archeological artifacts. They just want to use the land in a way that supports their way of life before things went sideways with monument designations.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Bax* said:


> . But I believe that it will make things easier for ranchers to be granted grazing permits, and potentially allow certain industries to grow again..


Just a point....Grazing permits on the Grand Staircase haven't changed. I hear this argument a lot and it is 100% false. The number of grazing permits from before the designation to now has not decreased...


----------



## Bax*

backcountry said:


> A general theme I am concerned about will be wether or not GSENM boundary changes will affect habitat (increased fragmentation) and seasonal corridors/migration of big game, especially on the southeast side of the Plateau/Boulder unit. Some of the proposed boundary changes could impact those issues.


I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how this might be affected.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, but I am not sure that the original designation even affected this as no infrastructure was added that I recall (no pipelines, new highways etc). And I don't envision any real changes to the area since it will likely stay under federal control. So I am not sure how it would affect migration or travel of big game.

Thoughts?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Bax* said:


> They don't want to destroy the land and ruin natural wonders and archeological artifacts. They just want to use the land in a way that supports their way of life before things went sideways with monument designations.


I believe this is also debatable...looking at the BE for an example, how many people down there have run into looting problems with artifacts? How about the destruction of artifacts from ATVs?


----------



## Bax*

wyoming2utah said:


> Just a point....Grazing permits on the Grand Staircase haven't changed. I hear this argument a lot and it is 100% false. The number of grazing permits from before the designation to now has not decreased...


Interesting W2U.

I believe the permit numbers have not changed but have heard from several family members that they are much harder to obtain and certain people are given preferential treatment on the permits. This is why I used the word "easier" as I do not believe more permits will be granted. I simply believe that preferred treatment will become less of an issue.

I guess time will tell what the changes in boundaries really do for local economies.


----------



## Bax*

wyoming2utah said:


> I believe this is also debatable...looking at the BE for an example, how many people down there have run into looting problems with artifacts? How about the destruction of artifacts from ATVs?


This is actually why I deplore the monument designations. They have drawn a big bullseye on the area that attracts more traffic than the area had previously seen (I guess its just people looking for something to do and see it on the map and they say "Hey, lets check that place out") but since the GSNEM designation, the remote locations that I have spent a large amount of time exploring that hold native artifacts and ruins have been looted and vandalized (if I ever figure out who "Jim" is that carved his name into a granary, I am gonna turn him in!).

The monuments were once lone, quiet, low traffic areas. Now people from everywhere visit, which isn't a bad thing, but the crap they pull is astounding.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Except the looting problems are mostly from locals...a pretty high profile case just recently surrounded this issue.

Also, the thing that bugs me about grazing permits is that the same people who sold them off to the Grand Canyon trust are the same ones whining about not getting new permits. Sounds like a classic case of wanting your cake and eating it too...!


----------



## Bax*

wyoming2utah said:


> Except the looting problems are mostly from locals...a pretty high profile case just recently surrounded this issue.


I think you are referencing the one where the guy had a shload of artifacts in his home and was caught and seems like he committed suicide shortly afterward? Seems like that was near Moab if we are thinking of the same story?

I agree that locals take artifacts. But adding more and more traffic exacerbated the situation because more and more irresponsible and disrespectful people flooded the area which meant even more artifacts were taken.

The sad thing about the matter is that these areas are not policed regularly. So even with a monument designation, people come and steal artifacts and carve their names in walls with virtually no chance of being caught.

Creating a monument should have meant better management to protect these things, but I can confidently say that things are worse than before the monument was designated in GSNEM. I remember seeing a BLM officer about ten years ago by Devil's Garden though... so I know they visit once in a while ;-)


----------



## backcountry

Bax* said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> A general theme I am concerned about will be wether or not GSENM boundary changes will affect habitat (increased fragmentation) and seasonal corridors/migration of big game, especially on the southeast side of the Plateau/Boulder unit. Some of the proposed boundary changes could impact those issues.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how this might be affected.
> 
> I am not saying you are right or wrong, but I am not sure that the original designation even affected this as no infrastructure was added that I recall (no pipelines, new highways etc). And I don't envision any real changes to the area since it will likely stay under federal control. So I am not sure how it would affect migration or travel of big game.
> 
> Thoughts?
Click to expand...

All speculation from one map I saw a few weeks ago, hence hedging until actual announcement.

First, agreed, all stays in federal control as that was never a concern. Its matter of how the use of that land changes. I think the biggest concern I have will be any expanded road access if they revert to older travel plans, which has always been a local point of contention. We all know many trails were closed in the last two decades. We also know roads fragment wildlife habitat, especially in the transition zones from summer to winter habitat. But its difficult to gauge what, if any, effect boundary changes will have on that issue until an actual proclamation.

Industry seems unlikely, unless I'm missing relevant info, other than indirect effects from transportation of materials from elsewhere on the monument. Hearing disparate views in coal coming off Kaparowitz that is well outside my ability to assess.

In all honesty, my best assessment is it won't affect wildlife for 5+ years as I would wager any changes = lawsuit = almost immediate judicial stay = status quo until court decision, likely taken to the highest level. No matter the outcome, I love the place and will likely keep hunting the unit. I look forward to hunting it for decades if life allows and in doing so will likely see multiple changes in land and wildlife management.


----------



## High Desert Elk

It will depend on the management plans of the agency - BLM or USFS as to what fragmentation will do as far as road density.

And the case in question was in Blanding. The gentleman brought up was a 70 something yr old doctor (ret. I think) and most of the artifacts were found and collected on private surface NOT A FEDERAL CRIME. In fact, I am certain they were digging one time on my grandpa's land, by permission, uncovered a pit house (kiva) with cannibalized bones buried inside. It was reported to the feds, they did an assessment, took the bones and let them continue with their dig. Many of the charges in the Blanding sting were dropped, some went to court. But, the part that burns everyone local is the way the feds went about it. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

So, the moral of the story is - never speculate on generalizations...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax* said:


> I think you are referencing the one where the guy had a shload of artifacts in his home and was caught and seems like he committed suicide shortly afterward? Seems like that was near Moab if we are thinking of the same story?
> 
> I agree that locals take artifacts. But adding more and more traffic exacerbated the situation because more and more irresponsible and disrespectful people flooded the area which meant even more artifacts were taken.
> 
> The sad thing about the matter is that these areas are not policed regularly. So even with a monument designation, people come and steal artifacts and carve their names in walls with virtually no chance of being caught.
> 
> Creating a monument should have meant better management to protect these things, but I can confidently say that things are worse than before the monument was designated in GSNEM. I remember seeing a BLM officer about ten years ago by Devil's Garden though... so I know they visit once in a while ;-)


Right Bax and how does shrinking the GS now help anything? And you're splitting it into 3 separate monuments if reports are true. The cats out of the bag, tourism is going to continue to flood to this area and to GS and BE now. So now we are going to cut back protections from mineral development and put further pressure on the area. At this point cutting back GS does nothing but bad. The area isn't going to get some economic boom by cutting 1 million acres of GS, there isn't going to be more grazing (because as wyo2 said grazing has continued at the same rate anyway) , there will be absolutely no beneficial reason to cut back GS other than removing protections to allow mineral development which will just degrade and fragment wildlife habitat and migrations routes while increasing traffic and pressure. The area should remain protected in its entirety, and the litigators and itching to sue on this issue anyway along with a ton of tribes so lets just get on with this process and the courts will be the end decision makers of whether this power is even granted to the President. The only thing that will better protect the area is if congress and specifically the republicans in congress would fund these agencies so they can actually do there job. At the root of any problems with public lands, 90% of the blame lies on congress not the agencies managing them. Sorry to be brash about this, but shrinking GS is just not beneficial now. BE is a different discussion, but GS should be left alone.


----------



## High Desert Elk

So, looking at it in a different way, since the cat's out of the bag and everyone will come now, it will be near impossible to do any development based on public outcry and opinion, on a larger scale than the measly 2 MM that commented in opposition. Take the good with the bad.


----------



## PBH

I drove through Escalante last Sunday. 
The Grand Staircase Resort, RV park, was about 3/4 full. 
The Prospector Inn had numerous vehicles parked in their lot.
The EGS B&D has cars in their lot.
Cottams 66 had 3 vehicles (4 pumps?) filling up.
The brand new Canyon Country Lodge has lots of cars in their lot.
Later in the afternoon, Nemo's burger joint was open. We stopped for burgers. At least 5 other groups were also there eating.

This was the last weekend in November.

Traffic in Bryce was busy.
Traffic from Bryce to 89 was busy.
Traffic on 89 was horrible.
Tourist "season" has become a 12 month long period.

Remind me: what's the economic problem in Garfield County???
Fake news. It's all made up BS because ranching and logging couldn't survive prior to the monument designation.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Agreed PBH, I pass through quite often, sometimes situations are what you make of them.


----------



## Bax*

I agree with the notion that the cat is out of the bag and had the same conversation recently. I would say that the damage is done and is irreversible at this time.

At this point, its a principle of doing what is right and ensuring that the size of the monument is correct. It is just too large according to current boundaries. 

As I have said in the past. It was an overreach of power when it was designated, and it is time to right size it. 

The rumblings at this point are that part of GSNEM may become a state park anyways.


----------



## backcountry

How would it become a state park given its federal land?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Dnews reporting that the Grand Staircase will be cut in half and Bear's Ears will be reduced by 85%....i don't call that any real kind of compromise. This is an example of one political party trying to undo what the other do. I see very little compromise in what appears will be happening...

Bax, do you think that such a huge reduction in size is "right sizing" it? I about puked when I read the article!


----------



## wyoming2utah

High Desert Elk said:


> And the case in question was in Blanding. The gentleman brought up was a 70 something yr old doctor (ret. I think) and most of the artifacts were found and collected on private surface NOT A FEDERAL CRIME. In fact, I am certain they were digging one time on my grandpa's land, by permission, uncovered a pit house (kiva) with cannibalized bones buried inside. It was reported to the feds, they did an assessment, took the bones and let them continue with their dig. Many of the charges in the Blanding sting were dropped, some went to court. But, the part that burns everyone local is the way the feds went about it. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.


Hmmm...here is a link to the case:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375486/Blanding-teacher-reaches-deal-in-artifacts-case.html

We are talking about the largest ring of buying and selling indian artifacts ever. 26 people were eventually arrested....some of those threatened violence if the FEDS did anything. Also, many of those people had been charged with similar criminal activities prior to this singular event. This wasn't there first time around the block. Many of those charged...including the man in the article Lacy...reached plea deals with the FEDS. Speculation says that they wouldn't have reached a plea deal if the FEDS didn't have a lot of evidence.

More here:
http://graphics.latimes.com/utah-sting/
Bottom line is that these guys weren't just looting on private land. That is pure nonsense. Trail cameras had these guys working on public land...the proof of what they were doing is all there.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...l-native-american-artifacts-looted-180956959/


----------



## Vanilla

This is a big change for GSNM, Bears Ears, not so much. While the reduction is huge, nothing in practice had changed since the designation anyway, so they aren’t walking back 20+ years of activity by reducing it. So reducing the BE monument size doesn’t impact anyone negatively or positively from where we were 12 months ago already. 

You all know my feelings on executive action designating monuments, so I welcome the Bears Ears reduction with open arms and applaud the action. I wish it were done by congress, but as they say, you can’t always get what you want.


----------



## Critter

Anymore I don't have a dog in the hunt for either location. I have driven through and hiked the Grand Staircase and have hunted the Bears Ear but since I am now close to the point that extended hiking is out and the LE status for deer and elk in the Bears Ear I highly doubt that be in either one except to possibly drive through them. 

But what scares me if how quickly one or the other could become a National Park with a bill and a vote in Washington which would lock out a lot of activities that go on now in both. That along with the closure of existing roads that are in the area with a signature on a piece of paper. If you don't think that it might happen the road closure happened this year before the general deer hunt on the south Boulder areas. The Forest Service supervisor in Esclante decided to close all the side roads during the general deer hunt and then to reopen them afterwards, blocking hunters that wanted to access the areas that these roads served. I was down there for the general hunt and found a few that were closed but from what I heard most were around the Barker Reservoir area.

As for those that go in and take artifacts, they should prosecute them as much as possible. Just designating a area a National Monument won't do too much to stop people from going into a area and bringing out what they want. Granted if the roads are closed down it won't be as easy but they will still do it. It is funny that as I grew up in the 60's some peoples homes that I went into had more artifacts in them than most museums and this wasn't in the Southern Utah area but Central Utah. Even the rancher that owned the ranch in Range Creek had quite a collection that he had picked up during his day on the range.


----------



## GaryFish

Really, there is no more protection for artifacts on federal land with a national monument designation, than just managed BLM or Forest Service Lands. All artifacts are subject to the same legal protections regardless of management. Besides, none of it is really about protection of anything. It is all a numbers game to appease one side or the other. There is a very big reason that neither of these places have seen mineral or any other kind of development in the 200 or so years that the areas have been explored by people wanting to exploit the lands. It isn't economically feasible. If mining could have taken off, it would have. If timber could have taken off, it would have. If energy development could have taken off, it would have. All before Clinton went to Arizona to declare GS. But none of it did. So they drew lines on a map, made people think they were doing something special, made some happy, made others mad. Now Trump is doing the same thing. Drawing different lines on a map, making other people happy, making others mad. But the reality is - nothing on the ground changes. But one party can declare victory, the other will cry foul, and votes on both sides can point a finger and say "See!" The entire deal is partisan symbology. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

So, yea.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax* said:


> I agree with the notion that the cat is out of the bag and had the same conversation recently. I would say that the damage is done and is irreversible at this time.
> 
> At this point, its a principle of doing what is right and ensuring that the size of the monument is correct. It is just too large according to current boundaries.
> 
> As I have said in the past. It was an overreach of power when it was designated, and it is time to right size it.
> 
> The rumblings at this point are that part of GSNEM may become a state park anyways.


A state park on federal land? Either they plan on turning over some of our public lands to the states or you're just listening to coffee shop gossip.

Bax as you've admitted what's done is done, and is doing something in "principle" worth further damaging an area by opening it up to an even more aggressive use of the land and its resources? Do you want principle or what's best for the given situation? Cutting back it's boundaries by half is short sighted, selfish of this generation, a complete slap in the face to the monument review process which 98% favored leaving it 100% alone, it's even a slap in the face to 60% of Utah residents by every single poll taken that DONT WANT GS SHRUNK. There was not ONE a poll conducted that ever concluded Utah residents supported this BS. As I've mentioned before even Utah Policy's poll who is very right leaning showed a majority of Utahns, including republicans did not want to see GS shrunk. It is against every will of the people. It's the same reason elk and antelope herds get the hell nocked out of them. You have a handful of bitter politicians and a handful of bitter livestock owners who have pushed this agenda. In the end this will harm the area and remove extraction protections currently in place. Is it likely the place will be overrun with mineral extraction? No. However, there is also no certainty it won't be especially with the current Administrations actions so far. Even if Trump shrinks these monuments and it is upheld in court, what stops the next D President from just expanding them again? Let's have some certainty here. IMO the focus should be on fine tuning the Antiquities Act from this point forward, instead of reshaping boundaries every time a new President is elected and creating uncertainty.

I can get where you're coming from as far as principle, but if principle is worth the chance of irreversibly damaging an amazing and unique landscape, I have to tell you I would rather see what's good, and I guess that's our difference of opinion. You are right it wasn't exactly right the way it was designated, but leaving it as it is 20 years later is absolutely the best thing for GS. I listened to the MeatEater podcast and Rinella talked about something kind of like this. If you told me tomorrow that GS boundaries would remain what they are, all 1.9+ million acres and they would be protected forever, but I had to sign legal documentation I would never set foot there again, I wouldn't hesitate to sign on the dotted line. Now obviously there's no real world way to actually do that, but sometimes there are things more important than curling back boundaries to limit restrictions on exploitation. If it is true this is the plan, to cut GS by half, I'm thoroughly disgusted. It's not what anyone asked for but a few bitter people and a few politicians requesting political payback. It doesn't do wildlife, habitat, wild places, or future generations any good.


----------



## backcountry

Critter said:


> Anymore I don't have a dog in the hunt for either location. I have driven through and hiked the Grand Staircase and have hunted the Bears Ear but since I am now close to the point that extended hiking is out and the LE status for deer and elk in the Bears Ear I highly doubt that be in either one except to possibly drive through them.
> 
> But what scares me if how quickly one or the other could become a National Park with a bill and a vote in Washington which would lock out a lot of activities that go on now in both. That along with the closure of existing roads that are in the area with a signature on a piece of paper. If you don't think that it might happen the road closure happened this year before the general deer hunt on the south Boulder areas. The Forest Service supervisor in Esclante decided to close all the side roads during the general deer hunt and then to reopen them afterwards, blocking hunters that wanted to access the areas that these roads served. I was down there for the general hunt and found a few that were closed but from what I heard most were around the Barker Reservoir area.


I didn't hear or experience any unusual closures. I also can't find anything on the Dixie NF website. Have you seen the public notice anywhere? Were the roads you witnessed as closed ones that were legal according to the 2017 MVUM? It looks like many of the roads around Barker have established seasonal closures, since at least 2016, according to the MVUM. It can be found here:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/dixie/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5444281

I ask as I have always experienced the opposite, ie roads not listed as legal that have obvious recent traffic. I have seen that all over the place on the south side of the Boulder. My experience in talking with the Escalante Ranger District is they are hesitant to fully enforce their travel rules.


----------



## Bax*

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmm...here is a link to the case:
> https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705375486/Blanding-teacher-reaches-deal-in-artifacts-case.html
> 
> We are talking about the largest ring of buying and selling indian artifacts ever. 26 people were eventually arrested....some of those threatened violence if the FEDS did anything. Also, many of those people had been charged with similar criminal activities prior to this singular event. This wasn't there first time around the block. Many of those charged...including the man in the article Lacy...reached plea deals with the FEDS. Speculation says that they wouldn't have reached a plea deal if the FEDS didn't have a lot of evidence.
> 
> More here:
> http://graphics.latimes.com/utah-sting/
> Bottom line is that these guys weren't just looting on private land. That is pure nonsense. Trail cameras had these guys working on public land...the proof of what they were doing is all there.
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...l-native-american-artifacts-looted-180956959/


that's right! There have been a few stories about artifact theft in the news over the past couple years.

There was one within the last year or so about a guy who committed suicide after being charged but I cant remember much beyond that


----------



## Critter

backcountry said:


> I didn't hear or experience any unusual closures. I also can't find anything on the Dixie NF website. Have you seen the public notice anywhere? Were the roads you witnessed as closed ones that were legal according to the 2017 MVUM? It looks like many of the roads around Barker have established seasonal closures, since at least 2016, according to the MVUM. It can be found here:
> 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/dixie/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5444281
> 
> I ask as I have always experienced the opposite, ie roads not listed as legal that have obvious recent traffic. I have seen that all over the place on the south side of the Boulder. My experience in talking with the Escalante Ranger District is they are hesitant to fully enforce their travel rules.


The supervisor just closed side roads and all of them had a National Forest road number on them for the general deer season only, then he reopened them after the hunt. The ones that I saw had a gate across them but I didn't get over to Barker to see what had happened but talked to a camp ground host that said that they were closed. The ones that I saw were below Hell's Backbone. We wondered if it was to protect the road themselves but as dry as it was all it did was to prevent dust.


----------



## backcountry

If you look at the MVUM map most of the roads around Barker have had seasonal closures starting September 22nd (until June) for at least a few years now. There is actually only one road below, I assume south, of the Hell's Backbone that is ever legal according the MVUM. FS Rd #714 that skirts the wilderness areas and its closed from Oct 2nd until the beginning of June.

The gates would align with the stated seasonal closures.

I clearly can't speak to the exact roads or closures but I do believe emergency closures require a public announcement, and legal justification, and the others are normally announced with the annual MVUM, which normally matches up with the Travel Plan documentation and mandates. A closure is normally a lengthy process internally (input from multiple departments) and often involves a public comment period. 

Sorry you experienced unknown closures. I imagine that can change a hunting plan fast. For the me the experience has been opposite. I have backpacked into areas clearly closed to motor vehicles only to discover recent OHV tracks. When I have presented USFS personnel with details they have been really hesitant. I have found most districts gun shy about such information given how underfunded and understaffed they remain.


----------



## Catherder

A few random comments.

1. In our neck of the Boulder, there were no road closures during the general deer hunt.

2. Regardless of what Trump announces next week, litigation appears to be a certainty. Depending on whether the courts grant a stay in enacting changes, it is likely that it will take years before there are any changes at GSENM. As has been previously noted, Bears Ears is so new, there probably won't be any discernible changes there either for a while. If the litigation lasts over 3 years, or if impeachment occurs, a new administration (especially a "D") might just drop trying to change things.

3. Based on what I can discern from the map, I don't think that the recreation industry will be demolished if the changes take place. I suppose there are always unintended consequences, especially if extraction somehow occurs.

4. I've said this before, but the promises of all these mining jobs (especially coal) that the Garfield county politicians continue to spout about are a pipe dream. The economics of the coal industry simply are not favorable to new development. As Gary and PBH have pointed out, other extraction industries washed out before the Monument was designated. They won't miraculously reappear.

I posted this article previously, but it is still applicable.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-coals-decline/

5. RE"one party can declare victory, the other will cry foul, and votes on both sides can point a finger and say "See!" The entire deal is partisan symbology. Nothing more. Nothing less. "

So true.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If you told me tomorrow that GS boundaries would remain what they are, all 1.9+ million acres and they would be protected forever, but I had to sign legal documentation I would never set foot there again, I wouldn't hesitate to sign on the dotted line.


This type of comment is extremely concerning to me, particularly when you're on the record at least implying you'd favor these becoming national parks.

Public land not available to the public might as well be sold off. It has no use as public land if none of the public can utilize it. I could not disagree with your position on that any more than I do. Keep public lands public, for the public. For me, and for you.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> This type of comment is extremely concerning to me, particularly when you're on the record at least implying you'd favor these becoming national parks.
> 
> Public land not available to the public might as well be sold off. It has no use as public land if none of the public can utilize it. I could not disagree with your position on that any more than I do. Keep public lands public, for the public. For me, and for you.


When did I imply I favored them becoming National Parks? Stop reaching. I'm not saying lock the public out, I'm saying there are places worth more than the monetary value that can be gained from the resources on them. Again, stop reaching. I support access 100% for recreation, grazing, logging, etc. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## grizzly

Thanks for posting the info about the looting of public land being instigated primarily by locals. The claim that they are the protectors of the land is provably not correct in the case of looting.

Also, the most egregious road closures I've seen in the Bears Ears area were perpetrated by locals, not the Feds ... http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4784759&itype=CMSID ... again, the locals are the ones being not protective of public land and public access.

The part of this discussion regarding the "cat out of the bag" argument against the Monuments is a little funny too. Nobody is talking about Gold Butte National Monument which was put in place at the same time as Bears Ears because the locals haven't been causing a big stink. If opponents would've kept Bears Ears out of the news, non-residents would've long ago forgotten about it and nobody would have a reason to visit the area. This is a case of "loving something to death."

I think the BENM was probably too large and I look forward to seeing the reduced footprint as it will probably more accurately reflect the area and the intent of the Antiquities Act, but I'd take a NM over state/local control any day of the week.

Good discussion, all.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> When did I imply I favored them becoming National Parks? Stop reaching. I'm not saying lock the public out, I'm saying there are places worth more than the monetary value that can be gained from the resources on them. Again, stop reaching. I support access 100% for recreation, grazing, logging, etc. Don't put words in my mouth.


I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You're the one that said it, and I scratched my head then too.

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/21-gr...ops-antiquities-act-reform-4.html#post1951977


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You're the one that said it, and I scratched my head then too.
> 
> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/21-gr...ops-antiquities-act-reform-4.html#post1951977


I wasn't inferring that they should be turned into national parks or that it would be good ignored they were. I was simply saying that even places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone were controversial at the time, just as these monuments are now. I think our National Parks are good to have, great economical drivers, and just nice to have them preserved. That being said, I don't think we really need any more National Parks. I'm perfectly happy having National Monuments that remain under the managment control of the BLM and Forest Service and would never support turning Bears Ears or GS into a National Park or even management of them over to the Park Service, not even any of the proposed smaller sizes. National Monuments are not National Parks however, and BE and GS are prime examples of monuments that specifically protect a variety of recreational and access opportunities that are protected within their proclamation. I never wish to see access or hunting opportunity diminished on either of these monuments, or I wouldn't support them. I don't have the same fears as you, or I feel they are not as likely an outcome as you do. As I said, I'd like to see the actual proposals Monday, so this can start being dragged through the litigation process for years and we can actually find where we are at. I agree with what was said before also, that even the proclamation on Monday likely won't change a thing for years, and may change nothing at all in 3 years if a Democrat is elected.


----------



## backcountry

I think the old monument to national park pathway is largely gone. The framework for managing monuments is different now. And I don't think the western states would allow it given it needs congressional approval. I can see a continued push for small, culture based NP but not anything big again.


----------



## wyoming2utah

One of the things that bugs me about the outcry towards the amount of land designated as national monuments is that we have similar amounts of public land that are off limits and unusable because of mining leases that are not being used. So, millions of acres of public land sits with the public land being locked out yet it is unused by the mineral companies that are leasing the land. And, the hypocritical cry from those opposing the monuments is all about multiple uses of the land...


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> One of the things that bugs me about the outcry towards the amount of land designated as national monuments is that we have similar amounts of public land that are off limits and unusable because of mining leases that are not being used. So, millions of acres of public land sits with the public land being locked out yet it is unused by the mineral companies that are leasing the land. And, the hypocritical cry from those opposing the monuments is all about multiple uses of the land...


Being a solo hunter I am not tied to one spot, and always try and find new ones. The amount of public land that is leased for private gain OR is landlocked drives me crazy.

Everytime I drive past Snowbasin, over trappers loop, I am mad that the old road was closed and it was said it would open more hunting opportunity. Well that just led to more landlocked public ground. Then I think about Snowbasin. I know I know, $$$ for the state via tourism. But what does this money do? My kids still have to go to school with 30 other kids crammed in their class, while public education is suppose to be "free" I still have registration fees (my out of state family does not), our roadways still suck, etc.. They won't let me rid the gondola with a bow and go up and hunt. Tons of moose were moved for the Olympics, which downright sucks 16 years later to see the area deprived of them.

I can be wrong. Maybe I don't know every logistic. My initial "fear" with this is that the "public" land will just go to private industries. While it is odd that Clinton didn't actually visit, and signed Grand Staircase from Grand Canyon, I don't know if I was for or against it. Oil? Great! Except OUR prices and taxes won't be lower regardless of the environmental impact we face. If we truly had a right to "public" owned land this would be a whole different discussion wouldn't it?

This was exactly the discussion I hoped to start. I appreciate everyone chiming in here and look forward to reading more.


----------



## Vanilla

1-eye, I’m not all that worried about these becoming national parks. I was simply replying to your statement alleging the success of the national monument designation process by citing national parks, and saying maybe the same could be said for these monuments one day in the future. Again, NO THANKS! I would way rather have Yellowstone be national forest land that 95% of the current users ignore and I could hunt than what it is today. That place is a complete and utter joke with crowds anymore. 

W2U, you hit the nail on the head of public lands being locked up. I don’t care what the reason is, it simply shouldn’t happen. If they are public lands, we should get to utilize them. If you’re not going to let us utilize them, what is the point? Not saying there has to be a road on every ridge. But don’t lock us totally out, period.


----------



## backcountry

RandomElk16 said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things that bugs me about the outcry towards the amount of land designated as national monuments is that we have similar amounts of public land that are off limits and unusable because of mining leases that are not being used. So, millions of acres of public land sits with the public land being locked out yet it is unused by the mineral companies that are leasing the land. And, the hypocritical cry from those opposing the monuments is all about multiple uses of the land...
> 
> 
> 
> Being a solo hunter I am not tied to one spot, and always try and find new ones. The amount of public land that is leased for private gain OR is landlocked drives me crazy.
> 
> Everytime I drive past Snowbasin, over trappers loop, I am mad that the old road was closed and it was said it would open more hunting opportunity. Well that just led to more landlocked public ground. Then I think about Snowbasin. I know I know, $$$ for the state via tourism. But what does this money do? My kids still have to go to school with 30 other kids crammed in their class, while public education is suppose to be "free" I still have registration fees (my out of state family does not), our roadways still suck, etc.. They won't let me rid the gondola with a bow and go up and hunt. Tons of moose were moved for the Olympics, which downright sucks 16 years later to see the area deprived of them.
> 
> I can be wrong. Maybe I don't know every logistic. My initial "fear" with this is that the "public" land will just go to private industries. While it is odd that Clinton didn't actually visit, and signed Grand Staircase from Grand Canyon, I don't know if I was for or against it. Oil? Great! Except OUR prices and taxes won't be lower regardless of the environmental impact we face. If we truly had a right to "public" owned land this would be a whole different discussion wouldn't it?
> 
> This was exactly the discussion I hoped to start. I appreciate everyone chiming in here and look forward to reading more.
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar boat though I hope to get to know one hunting unit for a long time as I am drawn to getting know a "place" in a way I haven't in other pursuits.

I think the perspective you highlight is fair and part of the long tradional view of conservation. Its often buried in the economic rhetoric but we began to conserve land because of how various economic endeavors "locked out" other pursuits.

As a backpack hunter I am currently skeptical that any changes to GSENM monument will be helpful to hunting and conservation. It doesn't take much time with a map to see how little of public land in Southern Utah, even the Boulder unit, is truly roadless. Eeking out a hunt more than 3 miles from a road in elk and mule deer country in October in that unit, outside the low big game density of the Kaparowitz subunit and Escalante canyon country, isn't a simple task. I just can't see loosening management, especially travel restrictions, being better for herds and non-road hunting. It could be neutral but I can't imagine it "better" given our already fragmented habitat and struggling herds.

Time will tell.


----------



## wyoming2utah

backcountry said:


> As a backpack hunter I am currently skeptical that any changes to GSENM monument will be helpful to hunting and conservation. It doesn't take much time with a map to see how little of public land in Southern Utah, even the Boulder unit, is truly roadless. Eeking out a hunt more than 3 miles from a road in elk and mule deer country in October in that unit, outside the low big game density of the Kaparowitz subunit and Escalante canyon country, isn't a simple task. I just can't see loosening management, especially travel restrictions, being better for herds and non-road hunting. It could be neutral but I can't imagine it "better" given our already fragmented habitat and struggling herds.
> 
> Time will tell.


Along those same lines, I fear an increase of roads on the Kaiparowitz due to an increase in mining leases and mineral extraction. Look at this recent issue on that same land:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4655949&itype=CMSID

The idea that mining won't increase with looser restrictions and the absence of the monument is not reality in my eyes...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> 1-eye, I'm not all that worried about these becoming national parks. I was simply replying to your statement alleging the success of the national monument designation process by citing national parks, and saying maybe the same could be said for these monuments one day in the future. Again, NO THANKS! I would way rather have Yellowstone be national forest land that 95% of the current users ignore and I could hunt than what it is today. That place is a complete and utter joke with crowds anymore.
> 
> W2U, you hit the nail on the head of public lands being locked up. I don't care what the reason is, it simply shouldn't happen. If they are public lands, we should get to utilize them. If you're not going to let us utilize them, what is the point? Not saying there has to be a road on every ridge. But don't lock us totally out, period.


Again Vanilla, I was not inferring that they could some day be changed to National Parks, I was inferring that in the future the designation of BE and GS as National Monuments will likely be seen as a great decision. You're already seeing it with GS as it is so obvious the majority of Utahn's don't support shrinking it, let alone the huge majority of Americans that don't want it shrunk. As for Yellowstone, I would support hunting on it, but if it is never allowed, so be it. Having a few places that are simply set off limits is not a huge deal. You make an argument against your own argument when you say "whats the point" of a place like Yellowstone, then go on to complain "utter joke with crowds anymore". Obviously it has some meaning to our Nation and its citizens if our National Parks continue to break visitation records every year, including a few here in Utah. There importance is economical and beyond, so saying "whats the point" just because every acre doesn't have a use for you personally does not mean you are right in your assessment or even close to being reasonable on your assertion of National Parks. Personally I don't think we need even 1 more National Park, but I'm not going to sit here and look like a fool saying they serve no purpose.

You keep talking about access and yet BE and GS don't bar access, in fact they protect it in their designations. If you're going to attack any monuments on access, roads, or hunting rights GS and BE are the last ones you should attack and the ones that fit your argument the least. The fairy tale that GS has significantly been blocked off is just that a fairy tale and a political agenda. Access, grazing, and hunting rights and wildlife management have remained the same since the designation. If you want to have an argument,a long with those attacking National Monuments maybe you should pick National Monuments that actually fit your argument because GS and even BE are the worst examples that can be cited for that argument.


----------



## Vanilla

You are so unbelievably confused, I’m not even sure responding can get you back on track. Go back and re-read. Try again. If you come up with the same conclusion, there may be no hope. But I’ll try. 

I never said national parks serve no purpose. I said public land with no access serves no purpose. You know, the statement you made about keeping GS a national monument and you not being able to go there and you’d sign up for that? I’m starting to think you can’t even keep up with your own statements, let alone others.

Sorry, that was rude. But...true. Take a step back, take a deep breath, relax...and try again.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> You are so unbelievably confused, I'm not even sure responding can get you back on track. Go back and re-read. Try again. If you come up with the same conclusion, there may be no hope. But I'll try.
> 
> I never said national parks serve no purpose. I said public land with no access serves no purpose. You know, the statement you made about keeping GS a national monument and you not being able to go there and you'd sign up for that? I'm starting to think you can't even keep up with your own statements, let alone others.
> 
> Sorry, that was rude. But...true. Take a step back, take a deep breath, relax...and try again.


It's a hypothetical statement Vanilla, not a real world one. I'm not saying if everyone was blocked from going there for it to remain a National Monument I would sign up for that. I said that if me, only myself, could make the decision to either continue to go there and open it up to mineral exploitation, or never be able to go there again and know that it would remain protected for future generations to enjoy, hunt, access, and recreate on forever I would have no problem never going there again myself. You're taking my comments beyond what I actually said on both accounts. I never once said I want these to be National Parks and I never once said that I would want it to remain a monument even if all access was blocked off. You're putting words in my mouth or stretching what I actually said. My statement in regards to never going there again was in regards to myself not everyone. My statement about what could be looked at in the future was only that saving them as National Monuments will likely be looked at much more favorably as time goes on. You on the other hand did make statements about Yellowstone being a joke simply because it doesn't fit any "you" specific needs or wants. My problem with what you're saying is all your posts are all about you and not the bigger picture of what will do the greatest good, for the greatest amount of people, over the greatest amount of time. If GS could remain protected and 4 generations from now you could still hunt, access, and use it the same as today, but I could never go there again, I'd be willing to sign that deal. I'm willing to look at the broader picture beyond what helps me right now and what is the best thing to do for the long haul. Cutting out the edges of GS is not what's best for the longest time, it's whats politically expedient and selfish at the current time.

I think we are both guilty of not fully understanding what one another are saying.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's a hypothetical statement Vanilla, not a real world one. I'm not saying if everyone was blocked from going there for it to remain a National Monument I would sign up for that. I said that if me, only myself, could make the decision to either continue to go there and open it up to mineral exploitation, or never be able to go there again and know that it would remain protected for future generations to enjoy, hunt, access, and recreate on forever I would have no problem never going there again myself. You're taking my comments beyond what I actually said on both accounts. I never once said I want these to be National Parks and I never once said that I would want it to remain a monument even if all access was blocked off. You're putting words in my mouth or stretching what I actually said. My statement in regards to never going there again was in regards to myself not everyone. My statement about what could be looked at in the future was only that saving them as National Monuments will likely be looked at much more favorably as time goes on. You on the other hand did make statements about Yellowstone being a joke simply because it doesn't fit any "you" specific needs or wants. My problem with what you're saying is all your posts are all about you and not the bigger picture of what will do the greatest good, for the greatest amount of people, over the greatest amount of time. If GS could remain protected and 4 generations from now you could still hunt, access, and use it the same as today, but I could never go there again, I'd be willing to sign that deal. I'm willing to look at the broader picture beyond what helps me right now and what is the best thing to do for the long haul. Cutting out the edges of GS is not what's best for the longest time, it's whats politically expedient and selfish at the current time.
> 
> I think we are both guilty of not fully understanding what one another are saying.


I briefly looked at this thread and understood you'd be willing to sacrifice your own ability to visit GS if that meant it would be protected in perpetuity. Pretty easy to see you'd be willing to take on for the team. You need to understand that V consistently conflates your words, uses straw man arguments and even tries to put words in your mouth. Been doing it for years. Trying to have an intelligent, constructive dialog with him is as useless as the vast majority of his posts. Not going to happen.


----------



## Huge29

PBH said:


> I drove through Escalante last Sunday.
> The Grand Staircase Resort, RV park, was about 3/4 full.
> The Prospector Inn had numerous vehicles parked in their lot.
> The EGS B&D has cars in their lot.
> Cottams 66 had 3 vehicles (4 pumps?) filling up.
> The brand new Canyon Country Lodge has lots of cars in their lot.
> Later in the afternoon, Nemo's burger joint was open. We stopped for burgers. At least 5 other groups were also there eating.


All jobs are good, but Im sure you can guess how much the jobs related to what you mentioned pay. Hotel manager, maids, gas station clerk, cook at the restaurant, dishwasher, restaurant manager, RV park manager. Not a single one of these jobs pays nearly what an industrial job would pay related to minerals, timber, etc. Certainly, the owners of the businesses can make a living out of it, that is why the locals arent crazy about tourism alone. Certainly, most areas get more sales taxes than the average as they have ZAP taxes and such, but tourism is not that great of a base until it becomes huge as is the case in Moab. Escalante, Torrey, Blanding are nowhere near that level. 
I dont think reducing their size will affect tourism in the least except for the politicians who will likely call for boycotts and such. 
I agree with Bax on the rightsizing. Between GS and BE they average 1,600,000 acres, over 3x the size of Salt Lake County. I believe GS was the largest monument outside of Alaska (a state that is 8x larger than Utah, 54mm acres vs 424mm acres). The Antiquities Act was meant to protect areas with antiquities, not close off millions of acres when only a small portion of them meeting the qualifications. If we want to designate them as a recreation area, that is a discussion we could have, but the sheer sizes of these monuments are clearly way outside of the intentions of the act. Just another size reference, our 5 National Parks in Utah average 168,000 acres and these two monuments average 1,600,000 or nearly 10x the size of the national parks...pretty obvious these are way outside of what they should be and was a simple backdoor way of placating their constituents w/o going through the proper channels.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Vanilla said:


> I never said national parks serve no purpose. I said public land with no access serves no purpose..


I'll kindly disagree with this statement. I believe that land, left to the wild, can serve many tremendous purposes. -----SS


----------



## backcountry

Springville Shooter said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said national parks serve no purpose. I said public land with no access serves no purpose..
> 
> 
> 
> I'll kindly disagree with this statement. I believe that land, left to the wild, can serve many tremendous purposes. -----SS
Click to expand...

National Parks and other preservation oriented lands definitely serve as critical islands for wildlife populations. Short term loss, long term gain. I wish we had designed our land management structure more logically but we did pretty well with the hand we were dealt. I haven't found a new national park proposal (outside very small cultural parks) that I could support in a while nor do I think they are viable options in our national politics. The West is plum full of parks already.

Not really relevant though. We are facing down sizing, not increases.


----------



## Finnegan

I'm heading over to the rally at the capitol in just a bit, so figure I may as well weigh in here. First, I'm impressed with this thread...one of the most intelligent discussions I've read (and I've read a lot over the years that I've been following this issue). I don't know squat about GSENM, but I know Bear's Ears and the long history leading up to the current mess.

I've learned that debating the pros and cons of BE doesn't get anywhere. I've never once seen anybody persuaded one way or another. So I just want to contribute this thought.

Public land management shouldn't be about partisan politics, but about wise use of our heritage tempered by an obligation to future generations (i.e. conservation). From that perspective, as a 4th generation native of Utah and an outdoorsman, I must side with the tribes because I share their traditional values - values that in my opinion are far better aligned with my understanding of conservation. To be specific:

1. It's the unfortunate nature of partisan politics today to be dishonest. Utah's politicians have demonstrated outrageous dishonesty with regard to Bear's Ears. The same cannot be said of the tribal coalition. Wisdom can never be founded on lies.

2. The tribes have a proven desire to preserve sustainable consumptive use of the land for everyone. The common claim that the designation is "locking up" the land has no merit.

3. The tribes find spiritual value in the land to be at least as important as financial value. (I haven't walked into a chapel in decades and lightning would surely strike the place if I did. Wild places are my chapel.)

4. I value compromise and consensus as the difficult process by which OUR lands should be managed. The tribes have consistently demonstrated both the willingness and the ability to engage in such a process.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Yet another poll on the side of not shrinking these monuments, but I guess no matter how many polls whether scientific, right leaning, or unscientific KSL polls the Utah legislature will not come to terms with the fact their constituents don't really want this. It is unpopular and anything but settled. Cutting back these boundaries flies in the face of the public comment period and Utah residents wishes

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46208177&nid=1417


----------



## Huge29

I dont see the issue as partisan at all. I agree 100% that BE should have the NM designation, clearly meets the antiquities act purpose. However, the way it was done, overlapping an existing NM, using non contiguous chunks of land, and the sheer mass I dont agree with. If the new size were to exclude some areas with antiquities in that area I would agree that should not happen. However, it seems like the argument being made by most to keep them the existing size is that those folks support misuse/abuse of the antiquities act to extend it into making what essentially become national recreation areas or national park of sorts. National monuments made through the antiquities act were solely for protecting antiquities not for setting aside millions of acres for hikers.


----------



## backcountry

Huge29 said:


> I dont see the issue as partisan at all. I agree 100% that BE should have the NM designation, clearly meets the antiquities act purpose. However, the way it was done, overlapping an existing NM, using non contiguous chunks of land, and the sheer mass I dont agree with. If the new size were to exclude some areas with antiquities in that area I would agree that should not happen. However, it seems like the argument being made by most to keep them the existing size is that those folks support misuse/abuse of the antiquities act to extend it into making what essentially become national recreation areas or national park of sorts. National monuments made through the antiquities act were solely for protecting antiquities not for setting aside millions of acres for hikers.


To clarify, the Act always protected more than antiquities. It states its for "the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest". The scientific interest has turned out to be critical for places like GSENM.

The non-contiguous island in the BENM is extremely close to the main protection and contains Antiquities of the same era and culture. North and Moqui canyon region is a well-documented archaeology treasure trove. Its one of the rare Glen Canyon archaeological side canyons that wasn't fully inundated. Its a logical inclusion of BENM that definitely meets the monument requirements.

I think anybody that has seen archaeological inventories and maps of the BENM recognize it's size is justifiable. I personally was against it because this exact outcome was predicted. I just disagree with the strategy and details given western land politics. I believe in long term sustainable management over short term gains that increase stakeholder tension. Nonetheless, the size grossly matches my understanding of antiquities and human history in the area. It one of the finest "outdoor museums" in the world, not just the US.

I for one hate how much visitation the place already has yet recognize the justification to protect these places is more about conservation than recreation. But they aren't mutually exclusive goals.


----------



## High Desert Elk

*Where Do You Draw The Line?*

So, where do you draw the line in protecting arch sites? The pics below depict what was left of what appears to be a lookout structure of some kind and the shards of a pot recently uncovered by rain on a lonely ridge somewhere in the southwest much like what you would see in Bear's Ears. Also on the ground and around this abandoned structure are numerous flakes from knapping.

This site is undisturbed, found this past weekend while elk hunting. The point is - there are many, many, many [people] that do not fully realize the expansive scope of civilization that once flourished in the southwest. To protect it all because of ancestral and spiritual ties, you would need to designate the entirety of the Four Corners States as a monument...

And I'll bet a dollar and a half I can show you some cliff dwellings much like you see in BE's not more than 5 miles from where these pics were taken.

BE's does not need to be as big as it was designated. It's a very fine line when the US Gov't makes special considerations for groups of people based on the sacredness of public lands...


----------



## OriginalOscar

Reread when the hysteria starts this week. https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm



> 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:


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> So, where do you draw the line in protecting arch sites? The pics below depict what was left of what appears to be a lookout structure of some kind and the shards of a pot recently uncovered by rain on a lonely ridge somewhere in the southwest much like what you would see in Bear's Ears. Also on the ground and around this abandoned structure are numerous flakes from knapping.
> 
> This site is undisturbed, found this past weekend while elk hunting. The point is - there are many, many, many [people] that do not fully realize the expansive scope of civilization that once flourished in the southwest. To protect it all because of ancestral and spiritual ties, you would need to designate the entirety of the Four Corners States as a monument...
> 
> And I'll bet a dollar and a half I can show you some cliff dwellings much like you see in BE's not more than 5 miles from where these pics were taken.
> 
> BE's does not need to be as big as it was designated. It's a very fine line when the US Gov't makes special considerations for groups of people based on the sacredness of public lands...


The sacredness is just one piece of the puzzle. Its also about research, public observation, and resource protection. The tribal coalition was just one group of stake holders pushing for designation and they are getting no more special status than other stakeholders in places like GSENM.

The expansiveness you describe is actually a justification for its existing size, not reduction. Many archaeologist and land managers gave input on the designation.

Per size...the courts of upheld massive monuments in the past. I mean we could have just designated a small portion of the Grand but clearly it was ultimately seen to be better for America to go big on that one as its constantly been expanded and respected by diverse people across political spectrums. I mean look at Grand Canyon Parashant after designation:.huge swath of land, respectable amount of motor trails, hunting and traditional use allowed, etc. A piecemeal, patchwork of smaller monuments actually creates tougher use and disparate user experiences. I actually bigger monuments will benefit wildlife and hunting as they can be managed at the landscape scale that allows easier collaborative work on habitat restoration, corridor preservation, etc. Less red tape when it can be done under one roof, so to speak.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> The sacredness is just one piece of the puzzle. Its also about research, public observation, and resource protection. The tribal coalition was just one group of stake holders pushing for designation and they are getting no more special status than other stakeholders in places like GSENM.
> 
> The expansiveness you describe is actually a justification for its existing size, not reduction. Many archaeologist and land managers gave input on the designation.
> 
> Per size...the courts of upheld massive monuments in the past. I mean we could have just designated a small portion of the Grand but clearly it was ultimately seen to be better for America to go big on that one as its constantly been expanded and respected by diverse people across political spectrums. I mean look at Grand Canyon Parashant after designation:.huge swath of land, respectable amount of motor trails, hunting and traditional use allowed, etc. *A piecemeal, patchwork of smaller monuments actually creates tougher use and disparate user experiences. I actually bigger monuments will benefit wildlife and hunting as they can be managed at the landscape scale that allows easier collaborative work on habitat restoration, corridor preservation, etc. Less red tape when it can be done under one roof, so to speak.*


Couldn't agree more. A single, large NM is much easier to manage and easier for the public to understand. Traditional uses are not infringed by such designation, the areas are merely protected against future extraction and development. All outdoorsmen; hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, explorers, researchers and the public at large benefit. Only those who desire to exploit and despoil these areas will be disappointed. Oh, and our local politicians.


----------



## High Desert Elk

My point was supposed to be that the estimate of the southwest culture population today is now measured in the hundreds of thousands instead of tens as originally thought. You want a sizeable enough tract to protect it, then you need to consider billions of acres, not millions. 

Regardless of which state it is in, it is federal land which means everyone has a say. I for one do not want the federal gov't turning tracts of land into a chapel, shrine, temple, or whatever for a band of special interest groups. Seems like there is now a gov't sanctioned religion...

Just as there is some fear mongering about the selling of these public lands to private entrepreneurship, I can have the fear that one day the tribal coalition will one day have complete control over its management for their own special use. I live in a world where tribal gov't reaches beyond reservation borders...


----------



## backcountry

I can understand the concern about the long run especially for folks who have seen or perceived inordinate influence.

But lets be honest... protecting Antiquities is not about a state sponsored religion. Thats more than a step too far. Tribal use overlaps cleanly with existing public use and antiquities protections. They aren't getting any special privilege as they are simply being recognized as a tradional stakeholder on committees. The largest influence on the committee, the Navajo Nation, is asking for protections to access and use, nothing more. They don't have much cultural say on most of the Antiquities as they are relics of Puebloan cultures that have often had minority stakes in these conversations because of their relatively small population. To be honest there are historical and current tensions between the represented tribes that could lead to them even having a difficult time developing consensus beyond monument designation. 

You are right about ongoing discussion about actual population estimates of these prehistoric cultures. But thats irrelevant. The monument isn't about protecting every site or relic; its about protecting one of the areas with the highest concentrations for "historical and scientific" purpose, from research, recreation and simply posterity.


----------



## backcountry

If I lived closer i would be excited for a healthy monument. Hunting that area would be phenomenal given its history. I've probably spent more time there most folks but clearly less than others and can only imagine improvement to big game herds with a landscape wide approach versus the current patchwork of mandates. Having a monument requires interagency collaboration. Having worked in the field I know how difficult red tape can be when there isn't a mutual mandate.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Some things to consider in the coming legal fight



> "When Congress adopted the Federal Land & Policy Management Act in 1976, it appeared to reserve to itself the power to modify or revoke national monument designations, which provides a powerful legal argument for monument supporters in any legal challenge to the president's actions," Keiter says.





> In the case of Grand Staircase Escalante, Congress also has already adjusted its boundaries and written the changes into law. "Because Congress approved a massive land exchange with the state of Utah following designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, it has essentially ratified the boundaries of that monument, and the president does not have authority to override this congressional action, given that Article IV of the Constitution grants Congress-not the president-broad authority over the public lands."


----------



## Critter

I cant wait until they designate all the shoreline around Utah Lake as a National Monument. 

Back when I was a kid we always found arrowheads and pieces of pottery around Mud Lake. And even today if you know where to look you can go down and find some.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Arch sites and relics are already protected on federal land. You don't need a monument to do so. Although it is a differnet management scheme and designation, special tribal use has been granted to a local tribe near the Valles Caldera Preserve (now NP). There are places you cannot go. You cannot hunt or hike there - and it expanded once it went to a park status.

Hunting in the San Juan for elk is already extraordinary, no wonder it takes some 18 pts to draw an LE bull permit. As far as terrain and landscape, no different than the other "backyard stuff" I hunt in NM and CO.

BE's is not a magical place in the space time continuum. As far as protections for historical and scientific research, Cherry Creek Drainage or Duckett Ridge doesn't need it, yet it is in the monument boundry.

Monument designations today are nothing more than feel good knee jerk reactions from ignored land management practices that work elsewhere. It is used for political gain whether it is tread lightly to keep humans out or to curb mineral, energy, or timber resources to improve the environment by controlling air emissions. Take your pick.

If you think things out west need protected all the time, you need to get out more. It's a big and rough place.


----------



## backcountry

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Some things to consider in the coming legal fight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When Congress adopted the Federal Land & Policy Management Act in 1976, it appeared to reserve to itself the power to modify or revoke national monument designations, which provides a powerful legal argument for monument supporters in any legal challenge to the president's actions," Keiter says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of Grand Staircase Escalante, Congress also has already adjusted its boundaries and written the changes into law. "Because Congress approved a massive land exchange with the state of Utah following designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, it has essentially ratified the boundaries of that monument, and the president does not have authority to override this congressional action, given that Article IV of the Constitution grants Congress-not the president-broad authority over the public lands."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

^This

Folks often talk about reductions 50+ years ago but those existed long before the modern land management ethic. FLPMA radically changed federal land management.


----------



## Vanilla

High Desert Elk said:


> Hunting in the San Juan for elk is already extraordinary, no wonder it takes some 18 pts to draw an LE bull permit.


I wish it only took 18 points to draw! (I'm not a bow hunter) Yes, it is fantastic. One of the best elk units in the world.

1-Eye, what you posted above is the best legal argument I've heard opposing the president's power to rescind Grand Staircase. Honestly, I buy that argument and think it's legally sound, for what my opinion is worth. Fortunately that argument does not exist for Bears Ears.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Dems and Enviromentalists are accusing Trump and Zinke of engaging in a secretive process aimed at helping industry groups that have donated to Republican campaigns.


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ckly-follow-trumps-monument-announcement.html

And here would be the trump card. (No pun intended)

This is where these decisions need to be made anyway. While I don't always agree with laws congress passes, at least they're done in the proper arena. Stewart very much tips his hand in the last sentence, for those keeping score at home.


----------



## backcountry

I would wager an ammendment to the Antiquities Act will be passed within a few years (today?) that limits presidential power in Utah like they have done in other states. Its a fair consideration given the size and number of monuments designated here the last hundred years.

I also think the Antiquities Act needs to be overhauled in general. Its ironically an antiquated tool that doesn't reflect our country and land management well anymore.


----------



## Bax*

backcountry said:


> I also think the Antiquities Act needs to be overhauled in general. Its ironically an antiquated tool that doesn't reflect our country and land management well anymore.


Agreed 100%

I don't think anyone would disagree that we want our lands managed in a way that is beneficial for the generations to come. I think the big concern is what we could call reasonable management. What one considers reasonable could be considered unreasonable by another person.

I really enjoyed this article on Deseret News: welcome-to-the-state-of-limbo-fear-and-uncertainty-in-bears-ears-area-about-future-of-land-way-of-life 

A quote that really stood out for me here is something that I have been harping on for a while now



Deseret News Article said:


> "We've opened a pandora's box," Redd says. "Now that it's been declared a monument, people are coming. So whether it's the original designation of 1.3 million acres, or whether it's reduced to 100,000 acres, people are going to come. The question is how do we protect the land?"


The cat is out of the bag. Traffic to the areas will increase year over year as a result. Now, what do we do about it?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

As I watched the Presidents speech I couldn’t help but be a little aggravated at so many of the half truths or lies. From the mention that grazing has been lost and access, it’s nothing more than a bunch of anti-public land Utah republicans feeding this and that was apparent today. I don’t blame the President so much, as he is only getting one side of the story and hearing only the side of his political friends.....let the lawsuits begin.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Executive Order number # :noidea:


----------



## RandomElk16

7MM RELOADED said:


> Executive Order number # :noidea:


Somewhere in the 50's


----------



## maverick9465

I think what's most concerning to me about this is the precedent this sets for future monuments. Unfortunately, Presidents Clinton and Obama made the Antiquities Act a political tool, and now President Trump is as well. While the creation of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase were politically motivated, I am all for anything that expands access for sportsmen and women while protecting the natural environment. I worry that the boundary reductions will lead to more natural resources extraction. I also worry that future presidents may not view the Antiquities Act as ironclad as it was intended to be.


----------



## PBH

locals were concerned about "opening pandora's box" with too much publicity and increased tourism -- the lack of being able to manage the resources.

Now, instead of 2 monuments we'll have 5.

remind me how that helps? Instead of stopping at 2, now they'll all stop at 5. That's not going to help reduce impact, no matter what the total amount of acres included.


This is all just a scam, and we're all being played for fools.


----------



## High Desert Elk

One thing that some may not realize is the minerals everyone is so terrorfied about extracting are owned by the federal gov't anyway to exploit as they see fit. They do not have to allow it, monument or not. For the good of the general wellfare of the population, if exploiting their minerals is a must, they would do it, monument or not...


----------



## backcountry

Well, I unequivocally condemn the new GSENM boundaries if the documents circulating today are accurate. I don't see much change for hunting in the Kaparowitz unit, which addresses some of my previous statements. But the massive reduction to the Escalante Canyon Country is obscene. Riparian systems are significantly diminished through out Southern Utah and those side canyons represent some of our best hope for restoration. Just one of a handful of criticisms.


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> One thing that some may not realize is the minerals everyone is so terrorfied about extracting are owned by the federal gov't anyway to exploit as they see fit. They do not have to allow it, monument or not. For the good of the general wellfare of the population, if exploiting their minerals is a must, they would do it, monument or not...


Then why change it??


----------



## grizzly

There isn't exactly a steady stream of people on the way to Natural Bridges National Monument (right next door to Bears Ears)... or Gold Butte National Monument (proclaimed simultaneously to Bears Ears).

I think there is some Chicken Little going on.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Here’s how this will play out IMO. Lawsuits are a comin, will drag out for years and unless legislation is passed by congress, Trump will lose on Grand Staircase, and very well could lose on Bears Ears. There will be no immediate changes from this besides lines on a map for now, and I think the lines on the map will likely remain the same after a dragged out legal battle. Congress will not be able to pass this unless republicans get a larger majority because this is not a popular idea outside the beehive state, and I doubt it or anything like it will pass. I’m simply glad we finally have a signed document that can now be taken to court, I just wish it wouldn’t take so long to play out which it’s going to.

The good that has come with this? There is now an acknowledgment from this Administration and Republicans that over 1 million acres of Grand Staircase are worthy of monument status and may ease some of the locals bitterness. I don’t support the 900,000 acres that just carved out that shouldn’t have been, but there is now certainty that the million acres this Administration didn’t carve, should always remain a monument.


----------



## middlefork

PBH said:


> locals were concerned about "opening pandora's box" with too much publicity and increased tourism -- the lack of being able to manage the resources.
> 
> Now, instead of 2 monuments we'll have 5.
> 
> remind me how that helps? Instead of stopping at 2, now they'll all stop at 5. That's not going to help reduce impact, no matter what the total amount of acres included.
> 
> This is all just a scam, and we're all being played for fools.


I have to agree.
Anyone have links to the new proposed boundaries? Or is this just another sign it and we will figure it out later moment.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.6ed1b22afd9c

Maps are in this article

And a lawsuit on Grand Staircase has officially been filed



> The lawsuit filed Monday by Earthjustice on behalf of several groups challenges the reduction of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which has been a source of Republican frustration since it was created by Bill Clinton in 1996.


----------



## OriginalOscar

#1DEER 1-I said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.6ed1b22afd9c
> 
> Maps are in this article
> 
> And a lawsuit on Grand Staircase has officially been filed


San Francisco based - https://earthjustice.org/

Wonder if they are looking to help the Steinle family as well?

Just reaffirms what happened today is the right thing.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> San Francisco based - https://earthjustice.org/
> 
> Wonder if they are looking to help the Steinle family as well?
> 
> Just reaffirms what happened today is the right thing.


An irrelevant, temporary redrawing of boundaries happened today. If congress does nothing, Grand Staircase will return to exactly what it was before, I would be pretty amazed if it doesn't. PS, don't like the groups that are suing either, but I also don't agree with the reduction.


----------



## High Desert Elk

PBH said:


> Then why change it??


It forces the bureaucracies to review a permit. Doesn't force an approval.

If the approval process passes the NEPA requirements and public comment period, it shouldn't have been designated anyway.

And I'd be darn careful to have the likes of 'earthjustice' speaking for what I do - hunt and fish. They are also against the destruction of wildlife...


----------



## Catherder

Now that we have a map and know what was done, a few comments.

1.


backcountry said:


> I also think the Antiquities Act needs to be overhauled in general. Its ironically an antiquated tool that doesn't reflect our country and land management well anymore.


I agree but the Antiquities act has entered the realm of partisan politics. Many on the left will never approve of any changes to the act and it is a great evil to some on the right. That is a recipe for inaction in our government.

2. I said this before, but the ultimate fate of whether todays action get implemented or not depends more on how long Trump remains in office than the merits of the act. The lawsuits have already started and more are coming. They will take years to adjudicate. If the "D"s win the White House in 3 years or even if Trump is impeached sooner, it is likely that the litigation will end. It is inconceivable that a presumptive Warren administration would favor continuing a legal fight on this for instance.

3. Speaking only on GSENM, it appears that the core areas are still intact and I would suspect that the recreation economy there will be fine. As has been noted, wildlife may not fare as well if there is heavy extraction activity, but more on that below.

4. In listening to the speeches today, we heard about how the Monument was "decimating" the local economies and all these new extraction jobs will be bringing "back" the prosperity. I just about wanted to vomit. It is noted that the irregular Southern margin proposed today is such in order to get at that coal, per impartial analysis I've read. In spite of how often a politician says it, there needs to be a buyer for this coal and it needs to be mined, processed and delivered in a profitable manner. Here are some current realities about that.

A) US power production from coal has gone down by 37.5% since the year 2000.

B) Natural Gas power plants are cheaper to build and operate and with relaxed fracking regulations, the cost of gas continues to be lower than coal in the forseeable future.

C) While Trump backed out of the Paris accords, other countries have not. I posted an article a while ago how China, who is faced with pollution problems worse than us, is transitioning away from coal. We cannot realistically expect foriegn buyers for our coal.

D) Trump also pulled out of the Obama era clean power plan. It is entirely likely that a new administration, especially a "D" one, will reinstitute that and suppress coal usage even more.

The bottom line is that the residents down there that have been promised all these jobs will likely be sorely disappointed. These communities will continue to face the challenges every rural town in the state (and nation) must deal with. They will need to hope those despised recreation sector jobs are still around.

Paradoxically, if my pessimistic outlook on coal mining is accurate, it should minimize the impact to wildlife.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> An irrelevant, temporary redrawing of boundaries happened today. If congress does nothing, Grand Staircase will return to exactly what it was before, I would be pretty amazed if it doesn't.* PS, don't like the groups that are suing *either, but I also don't agree with the reduction.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This administration is the enemy of sportsmen, wildlife, habitat, conservation, and indeed, the planet.


----------



## RG the OG

Someone please explain to me how shrinking the monument will change hunting, and how leaving it as it is now would effect hunting as well. Sorry just a little confused on what I should think about this! Simple terms always encouraged


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

RG the OG said:


> Someone please explain to me how shrinking the monument will change hunting, and how leaving it as it is now would effect hunting as well. Sorry just a little confused on what I should think about this! Simple terms always encouraged


If hunting and wildlife are important to you, these reductions open the wildlife we hunts habitat up to mineral development, habitat fragmentation, and fragmentation of winter ranges and migration routes. In turn fragmentation and destruction of habitat will result in less wildlife and less hunting. To keep it simple habitat quality is very important to wildlife and population numbers. If you want wildlife to do well, it starts with the habitat. This diminishes protection on that habitat in one amazing place.

Side note, several Native American Tribes have now filed a federal lawsuit on Bears Ears.


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> It forces the bureaucracies to review a permit. Doesn't force an approval.
> 
> If the approval process passes the NEPA requirements and public comment period, it shouldn't have been designated anyway.


OK. That sounds fine.



High Desert Elk said:


> And I'd be darn careful to have the likes of 'earthjustice' speaking for what I do - hunt and fish. They are also against the destruction of wildlife...


Garfield County wants fewer elk in Garfield County. 
Piute wants NO elk in Piute County. 
Our State legislators want to eliminate Federal land.

who's the bigger threat to those things I love to do - hunt and fish?

right now, our very own Utah republicans are doing more to threaten my way of life than anything 'earthjustice' has ever done.



RG the OG said:


> Someone please explain to me how shrinking the monument will change hunting, and how leaving it as it is now would effect hunting as well. Sorry just a little confused on what I should think about this! Simple terms always encouraged


The first thing that will happen as soon as a lease is handed to an extraction company is that a fence will go up. That fence will prevent me from recreating on what once was public land open to ATV travel, hiking, hunting, and enjoying. That's just the first thing. There are many other things that will happen after that.


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> San Francisco based - https://earthjustice.org/
> 
> Wonder if they are looking to help the Steinle family as well?
> 
> Just reaffirms what happened today is the right thing.


Did you eat Red Herring for breakfast?


----------



## High Desert Elk

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If hunting and wildlife are important to you, these reductions open the wildlife we hunts habitat up to mineral development, habitat fragmentation, and fragmentation of winter ranges and migration routes. In turn fragmentation and destruction of habitat will result in less wildlife and less hunting. To keep it simple habitat quality is very important to wildlife and population numbers. If you want wildlife to do well, it starts with the habitat. This diminishes protection on that habitat in one amazing place.
> 
> Side note, several Native American Tribes have now filed a federal lawsuit on Bears Ears.


Before BE's was BE's it was open to extraction and development. Please explain why nothing is currently in place.

Of course they're filing lawsuit. They're not getting their way. Protected use of land without having to pay for it. That sovereignty they keep tossing out doesn't extend beyond those borders. It would be no different if New Jersey legislated law for Utah...


----------



## Bax*

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46211347

I'm willing to admit I am wrong. If this happens, then we all lose.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I think we need more wilderness areas and less national parks and monuments. Lets protect the best and most pristine with wilderness designation and let the rest just be public lands? Since when did regular old public lands become not good enough?----SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> Before BE's was BE's it was open to extraction and development. Please explain why nothing is currently in place.
> 
> Of course they're filing lawsuit. They're not getting their way. Protected use of land without having to pay for it. That sovereignty they keep tossing out doesn't extend beyond those borders. It would be no different if New Jersey legislated law for Utah...


And I've said a million times, Bears Ears is not where my grind is, Grand Staircase is. BE is definetly not as threatened by mineral development as GS I won't argue that with you. As for the swing do part of your argument, okay but every American owns that land, and it appears by polls, the review process, and the open comment period more of the lands owners agree with the lawsuit than the county commission and Utah legislators.

I also think you should look at what PBH said. If you've ever gone to a meeting and seen the attitudes of these Piute, Wayne, and Garfield county grazers and the amount of elk they've gotten killed over the past 5 years, you might realize who has actually damaged your hunting opportunities more. Maybe we should talk bison that have red lines they can't cross or they become feral livestock and must be wiped out. Maybe we should talk bighorns that cost millions to rehab and one domestic sheep that wipes out an entire herd. Yes, environmental wackos aren't the only ones threatening hunting and our way of life.


----------



## Kwalk3

Bax* said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46211347
> 
> I'm willing to admit I am wrong. If this happens, then we all lose.


Yikes. Even if it's just a relatively small piece of the current monument. That would be an absolute travesty.

From his quotes in the article we would go from the current monument, where hunting is allowed, to a portion of that being a national park(potentially) with NO hunting, and an additional piece leased for mining, which in all likelihood would shut hunting and other recreation out of that piece as well.

I'll say it again. I'm far more terrified of what our state politicians are envisioning for the areas that have been previously designated as monuments than I am about the restrictiveness of monument designation.


----------



## Packout

So now they are proposing a National Park on some of the lands. That will stop hunting and grazing in its tracks. I'd rather have it protected with the uses than protected without any use but a photo backdrop.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax* said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46211347
> 
> I'm willing to admit I am wrong. If this happens, then we all lose.


My God seriously this is what they came up with? Guess you don't know what you got tell it's gone right?.... or careful what you ask for? Leave well enough alone? I'm a little mind boggled at this point. Vanilla, see this, I do not support GS, any part of it, being changed to a National Park.

If a democrat proposed this **** everyone would flip.


----------



## Kwalk3

Springville Shooter said:


> I think we need more wilderness areas and less national parks and monuments. Lets protect the best and most pristine with wilderness designation and let the rest just be public lands? Since when did regular old public lands become not good enough?----SS


I would be all for more Wilderness areas. Those are perhaps the most restrictive of all designations though. Some places warrant extra protection. I'm not sure what the best way is to accomplish that overall.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I mean think of it, you now have Utah delegation on record saying parts of Grand Staircase should be a National Park. If Trump loses in court, and the boundaries remain the same, there’s a good chance a push from environmental groups is coming to make it a National Park now. This wasn’t even a push or a thought before. To all those who thought they had to worry about some enviro group, your Utah delegation just took another step towards a big FU hunters.


----------



## wyoming2utah

#1DEER 1-I said:


> My God seriously this is what they came up with? Guess you don't know what you got tell it's gone right?.... or careful what you ask for? Leave well enough alone? I'm a little mind boggled at this point. Vanilla, see this, I do not support GS, any part of it, being changed to a National Park.
> 
> If a democrat proposed this **** everyone would flip.


I don't get why he is proposing this. Is he doing it as a political stunt to show up the evironmentalists? Is he looking for backlash? This idea isn't a compromise....it is totally one-sided. The whole argument against the monument designation was because it "locked" out multiple use. This idea would be a whole lot more restrictive than a monument and would certainly decrease grazing permits, mineral extraction, and any of these other types of industries (not to mention hunting).


----------



## High Desert Elk

National Parks = No Hunting...?

Not necessarily. Valles Caldera National Preserve recently became Valles Caldera National Park and hunting is still allowed. The baggage that comes with it, however, is a hippy wildearth guardian shouting like a lunatic when they see you moving into position to shoot a 370 class bull...

#1DEER - I know your gripe is with GS and as I've said before - that designation is dead and buried and should not be brought to life again. My bone to pick is BE's and the gross acreage involved. The stuff they want is on Elk Ridge anyway, and not all of it is necessarily huntable or even "grazable". Many may think tribal [gov't] involvement is wonderful and good, but that could very well be a Trojan Horse down the road...

And this will make its way to the SCOTUS and can be argued both ways: Antiquities Act doesn't say a President can reverse or downsize a designation, but it also doesn't say they can't. That opinion will be written based on things like benefit of the common good, heritage lands, etc.


----------



## backcountry

Well, I guessed wrong on their direction. How is lobbying for a national park a logical step given the local rhetoric?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> Well, I guessed wrong on their direction. How is lobbying for a national park a logical step given the local rhetoric?


Who needs enemies when your "friends" propose something like this. So I think PBHs question needs to be asked again.... who has really taken more hunting opportunity away in this state? Wild earth guardians, or the representatives in this state? Not only do several counties want every elk and pronghorn dead, our house representatives now are proposing legislation to lock us out of what has always been huntable ground under monument status. So they are livestock guys friend when it comes to wildlife numbers, and the enviros friend when it comes to locking us out......hmmmm

If this a broadly supported by the county commissioners in the area and is defended....it shows just how much about the R and the D this all is.


----------



## backcountry

I feel like I woke up in Bizarro World today. We live in a weird age. Guess I might reconsider hunting the lower canyons sooner than I had planned just to experience the hunt before I get locked out (the logical conclusion given that most NPs ban hunting).

I sometimes wish humans could hibernate.


----------



## Catherder

Interesting........

Stewart knows that he cannot deliver all of those extraction and logging jobs he was talking about in his speech yesterday, so this is the response. I will say this, he is right that a National Park would definitely stimulate the economy and increase visitation. Escalante could now be the next Moab or Springdale, with genuine wealth showing up. But at what price? 

1. I would imagine the locals that hate tourism are steaming mad. So much for their hunting, ATV's, shooting, and whatnot they are used to doing there. Will they complain about a "R" doing this as much as if it were say, Obama? 

2. It is obviously bad for hunters and ATV enthusiasts, as has been noted. 

3. So much for the "multiple use" rhetoric we have heard about. 

4. I'm curious what the response will be from the environmentalists and the "left". (Paddler, care to comment?) I'm not sure they will be in favor of it or not. If it passes, I do foresee them fighting even more vehemently against development in the surrounding areas, so if Stewart is using this as a tool to "grease the skids" for extraction elsewhere, I don't think it will help much.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Catherder said:


> Interesting........
> 
> Stewart knows that he cannot deliver all of those extraction and logging jobs he was talking about in his speech yesterday, so this is the response. I will say this, he is right that a National Park would definitely stimulate the economy and increase visitation. Escalante could now be the next Moab or Springdale, with genuine wealth showing up. But at what price?
> 
> 1. I would imagine the locals that hate tourism are steaming mad. So much for their hunting, ATV's, shooting, and whatnot they are used to doing there. Will they complain about a "R" doing this as much as if it were say, Obama?
> 
> 2. It is obviously bad for hunters and ATV enthusiasts, as has been noted.
> 
> 3. So much for the "multiple use" rhetoric we have heard about.
> 
> 4. I'm curious what the response will be from the environmentalists and the "left". (Paddler, care to comment?) I'm not sure they will be in favor of it or not. If it passes, I do foresee them fighting even more vehemently against development in the surrounding areas, so if Stewart is using this as a tool to "grease the skids" for extraction elsewhere, I don't think it will help much.


Agreed on all points, number 4 is a very good point. Do you really think mineral extraction will be supported within eye shot of a new National Park? I don't see democrats or the left supporting this, and it will be hard to pass IMO. All the democrats and left need to do now is sit back, litigate, win the lawsuit that Trump didn't have a right to do this, and then introduce and pass legislation to create a new National Park inside the boundaries when they get a majority because now they have even Utah politicians admitting that some of it should be a National Park. If they play the long game here, they don't have to give anything....there's a good chance a backlash is coming in short order in congress and the Presidency, it always does.


----------



## High Desert Elk

^^^ Your comment on point 4 above is correct...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

This article has a bit more detail:

http://fox13now.com/2017/12/05/rep-...ting-grand-staircase-escalante-national-park/

100,000 acre National Park..... just what does hunter the most good......right? I mean cause it wasn't Obama that proposed this......so its good.....right?


----------



## Catherder

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Agreed on all points, number 4 is a very good point. Do you really think mineral extraction will be supported within eye shot of a new National Park? I don't see democrats or the left supporting this, and it will be hard to pass IMO. All the democrats and left need to do now is sit back, litigate, win the lawsuit that Trump didn't have a right to do this, and then introduce and pass legislation to create a new National Park inside the boundaries when they get a majority because now they have even Utah politicians admitting that some of it should be a National Park. If they play the long game here, they don't have to give anything....there's a good chance a backlash is coming in short order in congress and the Presidency, it always does.


Overall, I agree with your assessment. I would suspect that the action will not cause any lawsuits to be dropped. What I could see happen however, is the left jumping on the National Park opening and saying they are all for it and press to make it happen quickly. Our local delegation could not backtrack at that point and it would ultimately either pass or depend on other "R"s to defeat it. The lawsuits would go on as before.

Since Stewart let the genie out of the bottle, it may be hard to get it back in and I see it very plausible that the National park may happen.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Catherder said:


> Overall, I agree with your assessment. I would suspect that the action will not cause any lawsuits to be dropped. What I could see happen however, is the left jumping on the National Park opening and saying they are all for it and press to make it happen quickly. Our local delegation could not backtrack at that point and it would ultimately either pass or depend on other "R"s to defeat it. The lawsuits would go on as before.
> 
> Since Stewart let the genie out of the bottle, it may be hard to get it back in and I see it very plausible that the National park may happen.


That's true, because as of now Stewart and Bishops bills are two different bills. Stewart's bill is for the new National Park, and Bishops bill solidified the changes Trump made. If Stewart bill is only to create a new National Park they may jump on it, but there has to be more in that bill. If he's pushing a straight National Park bill the environmental groups may very well help ram it through and if they win on the lawsuit they could end up with the monument in its entirety along with a 100,000 acre National Park to boot.


----------



## PBH

hmmm.....assuming hunting would not be allowed in the proposed park....

wow. what a turn of events. That's certainly not what everyone asking for the monuments to be rescinded was hoping for!

No more Escalante sheep hunts.
no access to the 50 for deer hunts.
no more ATV's to the Hole-in-the-rock.




but at least we can still get to the coal deposits out at Last Chance!


yep. That's a win-win. :neutral:





what's that old saying? Be careful what you ask for....


----------



## Catherder

PBH and 1 eye, have you had a chance to talk with many friends/neighbors about this? Is the average Joe 6 pack down there happy or mad about the proposal?


----------



## backcountry

Looks like the 100,000 acre National Park will be carved out of the remainder of the new "Escalante" portion of the National Monument described yesterday. It would have to be somewhere along Hwy 12. Wondering if it will be the portion from Death Hollow to Calf Creek as it abuts the wilderness. Seems the easiest and most majestic continuous section in the newly reduced monument. 

That still leaves most of the lower Escalante drainage unprotected beyond the WSAs that have been held in limbo for decades now. Why did they remove so much of that lower area from designation? I though the coal was higher up. Are there plans for developing the actual HITR area for tourism in a way that didn't align with the original monument? Pave the road or something? I'm missing something.

From a hunting standpoint, now I have to worry about different regulations. The herds in the canyon country are definitely lower density but as others have pointed out there are several species to target.


----------



## Bax*

Here are the new boundaries of the monuments in Escalante










I listened to Chris Stewart on KSL Radio today and he said that the plan is to make the Escalante Canyons area the National Park. I cant quite tell from this map what area that covers though...

I have also reached out to Chris Stewart's office here: https://stewartforms.house.gov/contact/ to express my concerns.


----------



## PBH

Backcountry -- all that lower Escalante is already in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (thank goodness!).

Using the map from Bax, and an original GSENM map, the Park would start at the Box-Death Hollow boundary, include Calf Creek and extend West to the Pine Creek / Posey Lake Road. That would follow out the 50 Mile Mountain eastern edge, including the HITR road all the way down to 25 Mile Wash, over to GCNRA, and over to Capitol Reef.

It would exclude 50 Mile Mountain (hmmm.....why is it being excluded??) to the western edge, where Kaiparowitz would begin. Of course, all the southern half of the Kaiparowitz would be excluded: coal.


----------



## grizzly

PBH said:


> Backcountry -- all that lower Escalante is already in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (thank goodness!).
> 
> Using the map from Bax, and an original GSENM map, the Park would start at the Box-Death Hollow boundary, include Calf Creek and extend West to the Pine Creek / Posey Lake Road. That would follow out the 50 Mile Mountain eastern edge, including the HITR road all the way down to 25 Mile Wash, over to GCNRA, and over to Capitol Reef.
> 
> It would exclude 50 Mile Mountain (hmmm.....why is it being excluded??) to the western edge, where Kaiparowitz would begin. Of course, all the southern half of the Kaiparowitz would be excluded: coal.


Would Coyote Gulch be included (Peekaboo and Spooky, for instance)?


----------



## PBH

grizzly said:


> Would Coyote Gulch be included (Peekaboo and Spooky, for instance)?


From what I can tell, no. Both are south of 25 Mile Wash, which appears to be the southern boundary.

They are also not included in the GCNRA.

Something that would be very interesting would be: if the Park was made, would access to areas outside of the Park, but only accessible through the Park, still be accessible?


----------



## Bax*

PBH said:


> Using the map from Bax, and an original GSENM map, the Park would start at the Box-Death Hollow boundary, include Calf Creek and extend West to the Pine Creek / Posey Lake Road. That would follow out the 50 Mile Mountain eastern edge, including the HITR road all the way down to 25 Mile Wash, over to GCNRA, and over to Capitol Reef.


I have been searching all day for a higher resolution map but cant find anything.

If anyone has seen a better map, I would love to see it.

Going up the area that PBH mentions could really be a bad thing for hunters....


----------



## backcountry

Yeah, I have to admit I forgot how high up the Rec Area goes. Thanks for reminding me of that so gently. I seem to have compressed the entire area into one management structure over time and that is clearly wrong.

Looking at maps right now and it appears many of the areas I am concerned about in the lower Escalante are well covered by WSAs. Per questions of Dry Fork slot canyons, they aren't part of the new boundary but are still WSA and have default protection.

To clarify, the map he provided is for the Escalante Canyon National Monument Trump redesignated. Is it just 100,000 acres, ie so it will all be part of the National Park bill, or was it larger? I saw a handout with stats from the announcement yesterday but can't seem to find it now.

It looks to me like 50 Mile is covered the Kaiparowits subsection but the bench below isn't. Are the coal reserves on the bench?

If I'm honest, its not as devastating as I feared but I still think its a poor move. The decision really increases the complexity of management given its now a greater patchwork of designations. A lot to look into and research.

This map is better detail:


----------



## Bax*

Thanks for the better map Backcountry

here is a map of where the coal is located.

Interesting factiod about the coal. There are buring coal beds out there that have been burning for years and years.

Its pretty crazy to see / smell it.


----------



## backcountry

Yeah, I've always wanted to drive the Smoky Mt road but never prioritized it yet. Just not as familiar with that part of the monument.


----------



## Bax*

backcountry said:


> Yeah, I've always wanted to drive the Smoky Mt road but never prioritized it yet. Just not as familiar with that part of the monument.


You can take that road all the way from Escalante to Kanab. Its a pretty neat drive. Rough in some places (which is why I am always flabbergasted by people who drive cars down that road).

The road also connects back to Hole in the Rock Rd at Collet Rd if you ever want to make a big loop.

I like taking Cedar Wash Rd to Hole in the Rock Rd, to Collet Rd, and head back to town on Smokey Mtn Rd. Its a fun loop on ATVs.


----------



## Catherder

There is one factor that should be kept in mind when looking at the maps. In his announcement today, Stewart said that the proposed National Park would be 100,000 acres *in* the new Escalante Canyons monument. As far as I can tell, he didn't release an exact map of what his plan would cover. The entire Escalante Canyons monument is 243,241 acres, so less than half would become NP. Discussion here has focused on the entire Escalante Canyons section as if all of it were National Park, which appears not to be the case.

This may or may not take some of the bite out of the problems a NP designation may bring, such as access.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Heres another graphic of mineral deposits


----------



## Vanilla

I guess I should have been more worried than I was about these areas becoming national parks. 

What a cluster...


----------



## paddler

Well, they could have left well enough alone. What a concept.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> I guess I should have been more worried than I was about these areas becoming national parks.
> 
> What a cluster...


What paddler said-be careful what you wish for.


----------



## grizzly

Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

As GSENM, we could hunt, ATV, hike, camp, shoot, etc...

Now the same people that wanted the NM removed want to effectively shut down/control all access and activities by turning it into Arches or Zion.

Should have left it alone.


----------



## Vanilla

I’m not the one that asked for monuments to turn into national parks! :grin:

Maybe the first time I’ve ever agreed with paddler on anything is today. Leaving well enough alone would have been the correct decision here. Nothing would have happened to Grand Staircase at all if President Obama would have done the right thing by doing nothing in the first place with Bears Ears. Like paddler says, leaving well enough alone is a great concept.


----------



## grizzly

This should be required reading regarding National Monuments and hunting, very informative...

https://www.fieldandstream.com/sportsmans-view-national-monuments


----------



## High Desert Elk

Vanilla said:


> Nothing would have happened to Grand Staircase at all if President Obama would have done the right thing by doing nothing in the first place with Bears Ears. Like paddler says, leaving well enough alone is a great concept.


I agree.

Who pushed for the Bear's Ears monument? Thank them. Nobody was upset until that happened...


----------



## Vanilla

High Desert Elk said:


> I agree.
> 
> Who pushed for the Bear's Ears monument? Thank them. Nobody was upset until that happened...


There would have been zero momentum to reduce Grand Staircase or any other Monument out west if Bears Ears never happens. Some would still be upset about Grand Staircase, but no way in the world that is even a discussion without designating Bears Ears at the 11th hour. President Obama should have left well enough alone. Now everyone is going to be angry. Well done!


----------



## Hoopermat

Did any one else read this? Quote

“That’s tough,” he said, adding he would prefer to use other funding sources. “But if we can’t do some of these other things, we may be required to do that.”

The congressman favors mining and other natural resources extraction in areas that would no longer be part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, though he said it should be market-driven.

“It’s one of the objectives we’ve tried to achieve,” he said.

But Stewart added it would be years and years and millions of dollars before any mining could occur. The land would still be subject to federal rules and regulations.

“It’s not like tomorrow someone’s going to go out there and buy 100,000 acres and start open-pit mining,” he said.


----------



## grizzly

High Desert Elk said:


> Who pushed for the Bear's Ears monument? Thank them. Nobody was upset until that happened...


Except Mike Noel and his ilk (County Commissions, Utah Farm Bureau, etc...) who have used GSENM as a bully pulpit for a decade in their attempt at seizing public land to sell it to private individuals so they could collect property taxes "for the kids."


----------



## PBH

Catherder said:


> PBH and 1 eye, have you had a chance to talk with many friends/neighbors about this? Is the average Joe 6 pack down there happy or mad about the proposal?


So far, blame is being passed to SFW and SUWA. That's sounds about right.

(wait a minute -- didn't SUWA want the monuments left alone??)


----------



## High Desert Elk

The two monuments are the divisor. The "ramrod" approach to BE's triggered the outrage support to mow forward on both. Although hunting and fishing is allowed on most monuments, it is an implied use, not an explicit use. That is the danger in dedicating monuments and the importance of dedicating the smallest needed footprint. I don't recall anywhere in the Antiquities Act that monument designations are for religuous worship as well, hence the 1.35 million acres for BE's. The coalition originally wanted close to 2 million...


----------



## wyoming2utah

Hoopermat said:


> But Stewart added it would be years and years and millions of dollars before any mining could occur. The land would still be subject to federal rules and regulations.
> 
> "It's not like tomorrow someone's going to go out there and buy 100,000 acres and start open-pit mining," he said.


Ok....but that doesn't mean they can't lease that land out tomorrow. They could lease the land and the rentor could put up fences as they wait to go through the red tape. That is already happening all over the West and Utah.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Although the land can be leased (rented) it is still public. They cannot keep you out. At least that is what BLM guy told me.

The only fences they can put up is anything immediately around any equipment they have for security and safety.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

wyoming2utah said:


> Ok....but that doesn't mean they can't lease that land out tomorrow. They could lease the land and the rentor could put up fences as they wait to go through the red tape. That is already happening all over the West and Utah.


Just for a bit of information these changes don't go into affect for 60 days. With all the lawsuits flying, what would cause this action to have a stay put on it until legal proceedings have concluded? I hope we can see the order blocked until rulings have been handed out.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I hate to tell you HDE, but that isn't true.
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-nat...of-speculation-in-federal-oil-and-gas-leases/


----------



## wyoming2utah

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Just for a bit of information these changes don't go into affect for 60 days. With all the lawsuits flying, what would cause this action to have a stay put on it until legal proceedings have concluded? I hope we can see the order blocked until rulings have been handed out.


yeah, you're right. My one day analogy was hyperbole for sure. My point, though, is that these leases can be made and we can be locked out without any mining ever happening.


----------



## High Desert Elk

wyoming2utah said:


> I hate to tell you HDE, but that isn't true.
> https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-nat...of-speculation-in-federal-oil-and-gas-leases/


Your article refers to locking up federal acreage the can be used for other uses beneficial to taxpayers in that the gov't can generate the revenue it needs without increasing taxes. The article also states that the current leasing system needs an overhaul because E&P outfits buy up the lease from the feds, then do some geophysics and reservoir calcs and decide that at the current gas/oil price it's not economic. They fail to give up the lease "in case they need it". When doing this, it prevents the other uses such as mining and/or logging operations.

Like it or not, the BLM manages the land for everyone and for the best benefit for the entire population, they do not manage it for you and I to have a good place to go hunting.

E&P companies do not go out and fence off thousands of surface acres to keep you out. If they do, it is part of their lease use approved by the BLM. The outfit I worked for was never allowed to just fence it all off. Just the one or two acres sometimes to protect equipment and the public. Often, it was just the equipment fenced only.

When we complained about a camp trailer parked on location, the BLM manager said it's their prerogative to do so as it is public land. If we didn't want that, then we would need to submit a sundry stating we wanted fencing and why.

Hate to tell you wyoming2utah - that' the way it is.

#1DEER, feel free to 'Like' if you want...


----------



## wyoming2utah

You are right about much of what you said....BUT, the BLM and Forest Service can and do allow leasing companies to fence of leases even when they are not actively mining. In fact, it is often written into the agreements. This is wrong. Public land should have multiple uses and mining should be one, but locking up public land with unused leases is wrong. I can personally think of several places in Wyoming where I enjoyed hunting where fences had been put up across public land to keep hunters/recreationists out. Often times, these fences are put up illegally without consent from the governing agency...but sometimes they are a part of the agreement.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Okay HDE, but only cause you mentioned me in your post.


----------



## grizzly

High Desert Elk said:


> Although hunting and fishing is allowed on most monuments, it is an implied use, not an explicit use.


You are correct, with a caveat. Here's the actual verbiage from the Presidential Proclamation establishing Bears Ears, _"The area contains numerous objects of historic and of scientific interest,* and it provides world class outdoor recreation opportunities, including* rock climbing,* hunting*, hiking, backpacking, canyoneering, whitewater rafting, mountain biking, and horseback riding. Because visitors travel from near and far, these lands support a growing travel and tourism sector that is a source of economic opportunity for the region."_

_*"Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management."*_

For reference, the Gold Butte explicitly allows hunting because the Nevada coalition sat at the table and negotiated it with the Obama Administration instead of refusing to talk about the process as the Utah politicians did.

You can also see permitted uses on each of the Monuments in the eleven western states created in the last 35 years here... https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/NatlMon_Permitted_Uses.pdf


----------



## RandomElk16

This is easily the longest thread I have ever started, and I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion. Exactly what I hoped it would spark.

With me being younger than most (assumption), this is one of the, if not the largest wildlife/public land impact that has arose in my lifetime. I was in elementary for Grand Staircase, and then Bears Ears barely happened before this. Of course there was debate around legacy highway. This is big though, and I think it is important that we are all looking at this. Unfortunately, the change to add it and changes to reduce it can not be impacted by us much. 

Best thing we can do is judge our representation (good or bad) on this and hope it works out.


----------



## High Desert Elk

grizzly - I agree, that language is in there.

wyoming2utah - I agree that companies will fence off land illegaly, I have heard some in the industry even say they owned that piece of ground as long as they were producing it (which is not true). I have never seen what you describe in WY in N[ew] M[exico].

I have witnessed, however, ranchers with grazing permits claim tens of thousands of acres as their own...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Boy we’re on a roll now HDE!


----------



## Kwalk3

http://www.themeateater.com/2017/st...grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments/

Everybody should take a step back and give this a listen. Gives a good perspective on where we fall as sportsmen in the political debate surrounding the monument issue.


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46214178


----------



## backcountry

He deserves criticism for such a poor choice. Sadly that type of conservation movement is founded on the concept that more people need to visit these lands to protect them which ultimately consumes "secret" places. Its a story written all across tourist destinations in southern Utah.

A side note, Jim Stiles is an ironic curmudgeon who isn't vulnerable to the role he has played in consuming western landscapes. I don't imagine he is a friend of hunting.

Ultimately, this is a relatively small transgression but it definitely exposes the imperfections of allies in the monument movement. And I have been consistent in challenging the notion that increased tourism is a healthy goal for conservation or hunting in the area.


----------



## Catherder

OK, I have been out of town for most of the week. Obviously, hunters are not overjoyed with the proposed National Park, but what about the general public? 

Most notably, are the "save Bears Ears/GSENM with no reduction" (with left leanings) crowd jumping at the prospect of a NP or are they cautious about it since it is an "R" proposal? Thoughts?



Hey, top of page.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> He deserves criticism for such a poor choice. Sadly that type of conservation movement is founded on the concept that more people need to visit these lands to protect them which ultimately consumes "secret" places. Its a story written all across tourist destinations in southern Utah.
> 
> A side note, Jim Stiles is an ironic curmudgeon who isn't vulnerable to the role he has played in consuming western landscapes. I don't imagine he is a friend of hunting.
> 
> Ultimately, this is a relatively small transgression but it definitely exposes the imperfections of allies in the monument movement. And I have been consistent in challenging the notion that increased tourism is a healthy goal for conservation or hunting in the area.


It's not clear to me that offering hikes to out of the way ruins is any different from Conservation Permits for trophy animals, with the caveat that I don't think the state needs to involve a middle man in the auction of those permits. If the hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints I don't have a problem with it. The number of trips will be limited by the price, and if all proceeds go to defend or benefit the monuments it looks like a win-win. Ewing shouldn't do it under the umbrella of FCM without board approval, of course. Am I missing something?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> If the hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints I don't have a problem with it. The number of trips will be limited by the price, and if all proceeds go to defend or benefit the monuments it looks like a win-win.


So only those who can afford it can go? Seems privatized to me...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> So only those who can afford it can go? Seems privatized to me...


Uh, no. The area is open to the public. Making a donation buys you a guided tour. But you knew that, right? Just trying to score some points?


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> It's not clear to me that offering hikes to out of the way ruins is any different from Conservation Permits for trophy animals, with the caveat that I don't think the state needs to involve a middle man in the auction of those permits. If the hikers take only pictures and leave only footprints I don't have a problem with it. The number of trips will be limited by the price, and if all proceeds go to defend or benefit the monuments it looks like a win-win. Ewing shouldn't do it under the umbrella of FCM without board approval, of course. Am I missing something?


If the point of FCM is to protect the archaeology than I think auctioning off hikes to "secret" locations is problematic. We are talking about the relatively pristine ruins that have survived 100+ years of pillaging being guided; even a fellow FCM board member found that problematic so I think its a fair critique.

Its a common concern for these areas. Its why Falcon Press received so much criticism for publishing a hiking guide to 'seldom seen" ruins of the southwest. Guiding, guidebooks and the internet have had noticeable impact of the type and rate of travel to "remote" locales. LNT is good but doesn't fully curb the reality of "loving it to death" tourism, especially for finite resources like antiquities.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> If the point of FCM is to protect the archaeology than I think auctioning off hikes to "secret" locations is problematic. We are talking about the relatively pristine ruins that have survived 100+ years of pillaging being guided; even a fellow FCM board member found that problematic so I think its a fair critique.
> 
> Its a common concern for these areas. Its why Falcon Press received so much criticism for publishing a hiking guide to 'seldom seen" ruins of the southwest. Guiding, guidebooks and the internet have had noticeable impact of the type and rate of travel to "remote" locales. LNT is good but doesn't fully curb the reality of "loving it to death" tourism, especially for finite resources like antiquities.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's not at all clear to me that the few people willing to pay $10,000 to take a guided tour into "secret" sites will have any more impact than some rich guy paying $150,000 would have by shooting a trophy mule deer on Antelope Island. Guided tours at $10,000 should also have less impact than the guidebooks and the internet.

The mistake appears to have been offering said tours in the name of FCM but without board approval? I'm all for raising money to fund the upcoming court battles against the petulant actions of the current administration.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Uh, no. The area is open to the public. Making a donation buys you a guided tour. But you knew that, right? Just trying to score some points?


Nope, no points. If the area is open to the public and the arch sites (aka "ruins") are publicly owned, then NO ONE should have to pay that much to go see them. Other places like Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde charge very small amounts for maintenance, upkeep, etc. If only one guy knows where they are and charges a hefty fee to take you in, what's to keep the one on tour from doing it themselves at $8500 per tour for competition?

Congrats! You have just privatized the use of historical treasures...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Nope, no points.


Yep, I agree. Ridiculous argument. Sad.


----------



## elkfromabove

Tonight (Fri Dec 22) on KUED, Channel 7, 7:30pm, 25 min. Hinckley Report. In-depth Discussion: Public Lands in Utah. Guests: David Nimkin/Nat'l Parks Conservation Assoc., Judy Fahys/KUER, Boyd Matheson/Sutherland Institute. Should be good!

Edited: Sorry I mentioned it! It was boring and clearly one-sided, ie: Pro-BIG Monument/Nat'l Park as in; We need ALL of it to tell the full story of the Native Americans (Somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 artifacts need protecting we were told.)


----------



## paddler

I heard tonight that uranium producers are optimistic about future prices due to the planned building of 25 new nuclear reactors in China and India in the near future, and a couple hundred more down the road. Is it a coincidence that the changes to Bears Ears removes those areas with uranium deposits? Doubt it.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> I heard tonight that uranium producers are optimistic about future prices due to the planned building of 25 new nuclear reactors in China and India in the near future, and a couple hundred more down the road. Is it a coincidence that the changes to Bears Ears removes those areas with uranium deposits? Doubt it.


Source?

Are you familiar with the term Fake News?


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Source?
> 
> Are you familiar with the term Fake News?


Sure, I'm familiar with the term. It's used by Trump to try to discredit reputable news agencies reporting well-sourced stories. Dumb people believe him. Looks like about 35% of Americans fall into that category.

The story was quoting uranium industry executives. Google it.


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> Sure, I'm familiar with the term. It's used by Trump to try to discredit reputable news agencies reporting well-sourced stories. Dumb people believe him. Looks like about 35% of Americans fall into that category.
> 
> The story was quoting uranium industry executives. Google it.


I would say dumb people don't believe him since most of the news stories have been proven false or erroneous and the news media is running anti Trump stories to the tune of 95% to 5% AS A DOCUMENTED FACT 
.....google Hillary Clinton and Uranium 1 if you want the real Russian collusion, but of course you libtards don't want to hear any of that do you? How about Hillary trashing all the women Bill molested and raped....don't want to hear that either huh? No of course not because liberals are always perfect and right and conservatives are the evil enemy that want to destroy the world in your sick twisted mind.


----------



## Bax*

Like anyone, I love a good conspiracy theory thread. But since this is an outdoor forum, let’s keep things on track and away from the politics that don’t pertain to this nifty forum. 

Thanks fellas!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I




----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> I heard tonight that uranium producers are optimistic about future prices due to the planned building of 25 new nuclear reactors in China and India in the near future, and a couple hundred more down the road. Is it a coincidence that the changes to Bears Ears removes those areas with uranium deposits? Doubt it.


Second request for your source? If you are going to put something out you need to offer the source.

My guess is BHA, SUWA or Patagonia.


----------



## grizzly

OriginalOscar said:


> paddler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard tonight that uranium producers are optimistic about future prices due to the planned building of 25 new nuclear reactors in China and India in the near future, and a couple hundred more down the road. Is it a coincidence that the changes to Bears Ears removes those areas with uranium deposits? Doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Second request for your source? If you are going to put something out you need to offer the source.
> 
> My guess is BHA, SUWA or Patagonia.
Click to expand...

It took you longer to type that than it took me to find a dozen articles confirming what Paddler said.



> In all, more than a dozen countries get over 25% of their energy from nuclear power, with 437 nuclear reactors operating around the world. On top of that, there are another 71 reactors under construction, 165 planned, and 315 proposed.
> 
> China is the biggest driver by far.
> 
> It already has 36 reactors in operation, another 20 under construction, and more than 100 planned.
> 
> China is going to build 40 nuclear power plants over the next five years.


----------



## Catherder

No, it probably is not a coincidence. They probably are starting to figure out that the logging and coal jobs won't be forthcoming anytime soon, so time to move to uranium. 

Hey, with Kim Jong Un in power, domestic uranium demand may go up too during the Trump administration.


----------



## OriginalOscar

grizzly said:


> It took you longer to type that than it took me to find a dozen articles confirming what Paddler said.


Lots of uranium deposits in the U.S. http://www.theupa.org/uranium_in_america/

Since you've appointed yourself as PR for Paddler is he tying the correction of Obama's abuse of Antiquities Act to uranium futures?



> The renewed interest in the so-called Uranium One deal came after The Hill reported last week that the FBI had gathered solid evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery and extortion before the Obama administration approved the sale to Russia of a company that controls 20 percent of America's uranium supply.


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-back-on-russian-uranium-deal-reports-baloney

Obama-Clinton sale 20% of US Uranium to Russian. Prices rise and Trump-Zinke rollback monument status to increase production for Russia. Is that really Paddlers theory? :hippie:


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Dumb people believe him. Looks like about 35% of Americans fall into that category.


Dumb people still believe in poll data after the last election and still underestimate Trump. Here's a little secret for you frustrated Libbies....

35% of Americans are love drunk with Trump, they actually like him and will say so. ANOTHER huge percentage are folks like me. I don't really like Tump, I don't relate with him, I don't really trust him, and he embarrasses me with his antics. When I am asked by anyone (including pollsters), I always give a negative opinion because I love that his numbers stay low. That being said, there is absolutely NO-ONE on the other team right now that I could ever vote for. As bad as Trump is, he is better for me than any of them and I will vote for him over and over while still giving him bad reviews.

If I were a Libberl and wanted to live in the world of reality, I would incorporate a "Trump Coefficient" of *1.5 to any and all poll numbers. And, hey, why can't you guys conjure up someone worth voting for? What did you guys do with all my granddad's Democrats?----SS


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Lots of uranium deposits in the U.S. http://www.theupa.org/uranium_in_america/
> 
> Since you've appointed yourself as PR for Paddler is he tying the correction of Obama's abuse of Antiquities Act to uranium futures?
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-back-on-russian-uranium-deal-reports-baloney
> 
> Obama-Clinton sale 20% of US Uranium to Russian. Prices rise and Trump-Zinke rollback monument status to increase production for Russia. Is that really Paddlers theory? :hippie:


Obama didn't abuse the Antiquities Act. There is no legal basis for Trump's reductions.

Uranium One story has been debunked, even by Fox:


----------



## paddler

Springville Shooter said:


> Dumb people still believe in poll data after the last election and still underestimate Trump. Here's a little secret for you frustrated Libbies....
> 
> 35% of Americans are love drunk with Trump, they actually like him and will say so. ANOTHER huge percentage are folks like me. I don't really like Tump, I don't relate with him, I don't really trust him, and he embarrasses me with his antics. When I am asked by anyone (including pollsters), I always give a negative opinion because I love that his numbers stay low. That being said, there is absolutely NO-ONE on the other team right now that I could ever vote for. As bad as Trump is, he is better for me than any of them and I will vote for him over and over while still giving him bad reviews.
> 
> If I were a Libberl and wanted to live in the world of reality, I would incorporate a "Trump Coefficient" of *1.5 to any and all poll numbers. And, hey, why can't you guys conjure up someone worth voting for? What did you guys do with all my granddad's Democrats?----SS


Wow. I couldn't vote for somebody who I don't trust and who embarrasses me. Obama said it best, that Trump is nothing but a b*llsh*tter. Nothing.


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Obama didn't abuse the Antiquities Act. l]


C'mon man......do you really believe this? You really agree that the original size of BE was justifiable use of the AA? You don't think that any of it was just a political poke in the eye to Utah conservatives?

I get and respect your position as one who would probably like the whole state to be a monument where only e-bikes and canoes are allowed but I bet somewhere deep down inside that you know that size of BE was BS. Even your ring-leader 1-I will admit to that.-----SS


----------



## paddler

Springville Shooter said:


> C'mon man......do you really believe this? You really agree that the original size of BE was justifiable use of the AA? You don't think that any of it was just a political poke in the eye to Utah conservatives?
> 
> I get and respect your position as one who would probably like the whole state to be a monument where only e-bikes and canoes are allowed but I bet somewhere deep down inside that you know that size of BE was BS. Even your ring-leader 1-I will admit to that.-----SS


Well, this issue has been litigated multiple times and the president has been granted wide discretion in NM designation. The courts have never limited the size of any monument. So, while you may feel that Obama abused his power, there is no basis in case law that supports your position.

Personally, I have no problem with the size of GS or BE. As I understand it, Obama's BE was smaller than what the Tribes proposed and about the size of Bishop's PLI. Don't understand why anybody would think it was a "poke in the eye", as it seems like a very thoughtful and well-reasoned act on Obama's part.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

A poke in the eye to Utah conservatives?Both sides are so attached to their political ideologies on this issue and beyond it’s ridiculous. I can agree that BE may have been too large, and also realize there is no legal precedent for what Trump did and the AA gives the President the discretion. I also don’t think this was a purposeful act to poke Utah conservatives in the eye...you aren’t that important that Obama specifically wanted to stick it to you...let’s move onto the next conspiracy. Paddler isn’t 100% right and neither are the fear mongering representatives and conservatives in Utah.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Dumb people still believe in poll data after the last election and still underestimate Trump. Here's a little secret for you frustrated Libbies....
> 
> 35% of Americans are love drunk with Trump, they actually like him and will say so. ANOTHER huge percentage are folks like me. I don't really like Tump, I don't relate with him, I don't really trust him, and he embarrasses me with his antics. When I am asked by anyone (including pollsters), I always give a negative opinion because I love that his numbers stay low. That being said, there is absolutely NO-ONE on the other team right now that I could ever vote for. As bad as Trump is, he is better for me than any of them and I will vote for him over and over while still giving him bad reviews.
> 
> If I were a Libberl and wanted to live in the world of reality, I would incorporate a "Trump Coefficient" of *1.5 to any and all poll numbers. And, hey, why can't you guys conjure up someone worth voting for? What did you guys do with all my granddad's Democrats?----SS


SS, truth is national polls in the last election were about exactly right, it was a few of the state polls that were somewhat wrong but most within the margin of error. Polls are still a good way to gauge how things are going despite not being exactly right in one election. The last election IMO was also just as much about the other candidate as it was the one who won, and the voter turnout of the blue team won't be as low next year or in 3 years. I agree however with you that if the dems put up a reasonable somewhat moderate candidates they would have no problem winning most elections in landslides in the next few years. I'm registered as a republican but am definetly not on their side when it comes to the environment, public lands, and conservation funding.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Well, I only hope that out of all the pending litigation will come some new precedents regarding use of the AA. I think that being able to stroke a pen and create OR abolish a national monument is more power than the executive should have. I think it would be best if the President had the ability to place an area on protective hold so that critical antiquities can be immediately preserved while the details of the permanent designation are created in Congress. 

I absolutely want our heritage to be preserved but feel that there must be some prudence and balance in the creation of permanent designation. Of course Paddler and the tribes want to lock up the whole state, others would have no regard for preservation. As with most issues, somewhere in the middle lies the balance. 

As long as we have pen-stroke politics, it will be a never ending cycle of back and forth. You won this one, we’ll win the next one.......maybe Obama should have made all of ANWR into a monument?————SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Well, I only hope that out of all the pending litigation will come some new precedents regarding use of the AA. I think that being able to stroke a pen and create OR abolish a national monument is more power than the executive should have. I think it would be best if the President had the ability to place an area on protective hold so that critical antiquities can be immediately preserved while the details of the permanent designation are created in Congress.
> 
> I absolutely want our heritage to be preserved but feel that there must be some prudence and balance in the creation of permanent designation. Of course Paddler and the tribes want to lock up the whole state, others would have no regard for preservation. As with most issues, somewhere in the middle lies the balance.
> 
> As long as we have pen-stroke politics, it will be a never ending cycle of back and forth. You won this one, we'll win the next one.......maybe Obama should have made all of ANWR into a monument?----SS


This is extremely true. We are to a point of pulling back and forth. SS there are things this Administration has done outside the environment and public lands I can applaud, but man I have yet to see ONE beneficial thing for wildlife or conservation. I have yet to see ONE policy that is a commitment to wildlife conservation or habitat stewardship. All I've seen is rollbacks. I can't imagine you agree with all these rollbacks? And they are all being done to fast track and push extraction on public lands as easily, quickly, and cheaply as possible. Is it really just to raise National Park fees to $70 and not raise prices on companies extracting minerals from public lands who are currently paying pennies? Is it really right to consider tearing up or seriously altering sage grouse plans that were barely getting to the implementation process, when a very collaborative effort was made for those plans? If middle ground is where we want to land, I think the sage grouse plan was a prime example of middle ground and the only State bitching is the anti-conservation, anti-public land state of Utah. It's gotten a bit ridiculous, not all these rollbacks or "reviews" are warranted or beneficial.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> A poke in the eye to Utah conservatives?Both sides are so attached to their political ideologies on this issue and beyond it's ridiculous. I can agree that BE may have been too large, and also realize there is no legal precedent for what Trump did and the AA gives the President the discretion. I also don't think this was a purposeful act to poke Utah conservatives in the eye...you aren't that important that Obama specifically wanted to stick it to you...let's move onto the next conspiracy. *Paddler isn't 100% right* and neither are the fear mongering representatives and conservatives in Utah.


Yes, I am. Everything I have said has been 100% factual, or specifically expressed as opinion.



Springville Shooter said:


> Well, I only hope that out of all the pending litigation will come some new precedents regarding use of the AA. I think that being able to stroke a pen and create OR abolish a national monument is more power than the executive should have. I think it would be best if the President had the ability to place an area on protective hold so that critical antiquities can be immediately preserved while the details of the permanent designation are created in Congress.
> 
> I absolutely want our heritage to be preserved but feel that there must be some prudence and balance in the creation of permanent designation. *Of course Paddler and the tribes want to lock up the whole state*, others would have no regard for preservation. As with most issues, somewhere in the middle lies the balance.
> 
> As long as we have pen-stroke politics, it will be a never ending cycle of back and forth. You won this one, we'll win the next one.......maybe Obama should have made all of ANWR into a monument?----SS


Ridiculous. I have never expressed any desire to do so.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> This is extremely true. We are to a point of pulling back and forth. SS there are things this Administration has done outside the environment and public lands I can applaud, but man I have yet to see ONE beneficial thing for wildlife or conservation. I have yet to see ONE policy that is a commitment to wildlife conservation or habitat stewardship. All I've seen is rollbacks. I can't imagine you agree with all these rollbacks? And they are all being done to fast track and push extraction on public lands as easily, quickly, and cheaply as possible. Is it really just to raise National Park fees to $70 and not raise prices on companies extracting minerals from public lands who are currently paying pennies? Is it really right to consider tearing up or seriously altering sage grouse plans that were barely getting to the implementation process, when a very collaborative effort was made for those plans? If middle ground is where we want to land, I think the sage grouse plan was a prime example of middle ground and the only State bitching is the anti-conservation, anti-public land state of Utah. It's gotten a bit ridiculous, not all these rollbacks or "reviews" are warranted or beneficial.


The Trump administration has been an assault on our environment and all outdoorsmen. Despicable barely suffices.


----------



## OriginalOscar

#1DEER 1-I said:


> A poke in the eye to Utah conservatives?Both sides are so attached to their political ideologies on this issue and beyond it's ridiculous. I can agree that BE may have been too large, and also realize there is no legal precedent for what Trump did and the AA gives the President the discretion. I also don't think this was a purposeful act to poke Utah conservatives in the eye...you aren't that important that Obama specifically wanted to stick it to you...let's move onto the next conspiracy. Paddler isn't 100% right and neither are the fear mongering representatives and conservatives in Utah.


Great example of Utahn Passive Aggressive tendency. 
- Both sides at fault. 
- BE too large which means you agree AA was not followed.
- AA give discretion but you just agreed AA was not followed? Huh?
- Call discussion conspiracy and move on because conflict makes me nervous.
- Label conservatives as "fear mongering" while Paddler and I have hissy fits


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Great example of Utahn Passive Aggressive tendency.
> - Both sides at fault.
> - BE too large which means you agree AA was not followed.
> - AA give discretion but you just agreed AA was not followed? Huh?
> - Call discussion conspiracy and move on because conflict makes me nervous.
> - Label conservatives as "fear mongering" while Paddler and I have hissy fits


#1- Its absolutly BS fear mongering and there were plenty lies and half truths by Utah conservatives and republicans on this issue. Period. 
#2 it is certainly a conspiracy to say Obama did this to poke Utah conservatives in the eye. There is absolutly no proof that was the motive of BE. None.
#3 the AA absolutely leaves the discretion to the President that designated the monument, not yours, not mine....the Presidents discretion. I can give you my opinion on the issue, but it wasn't my discretion that was put into law by congress. I am not the President therefor my opinion or discretion doesn't matter on this issue, and now it will be the courts discretion, not your or my opinions.

Conservatives labeled Obama a devil and cried constantly just as much as liberals label Trump the worst ever and constantly cry about it. Both sides are snowflakes, fakes, liars, and will do whatever it takes to funnel an argument to defend their side or their guy. People like yourself and paddler are exactly what's wrong with politics in this country and are why what SS says is spot on. You're polarized and blind to the red side of the isle and paddler is polarized and blinded to the blue side. Falling in the middle and hating and liking some of what both sides are doing would do our country some good, unfortunately you and paddlers attitudes and actions are much more common place in our politics and country today.


----------



## Dunkem

Obama did this, Trump did that, Bla bla bla. This thread is starting to smell like 2 week old underware. Left right, blue red, liberal conservative, right wrong. Sheesh -O,--O,- Take a breath guys, let it be for awhile, go hunting or fishing.


----------



## Bax*

Dunkem said:


> Obama did this, Trump did that, Bla bla bla. This thread is starting to smell like 2 week old underware. Left right, blue red, liberal conservative, right wrong. Sheesh -O,--O,- Take a breath guys, let it be for awhile, go hunting or fishing.


I agree with Dunkem.

This thread is getting tired.

I for one vehemently opposed the monument that was created by DEMOCRATS. Now that REPUBLICANS have their say, they made it even worse.

Hind sight; both red and blue screw as much up as they possibly can. I am so frazzled by both parties' meddling in our state that I can barely talk about the topic without my blood pressure rising.

And GASP! I am starting to appreciate some arguments from the opposite side of the spectrum from this very forum. Isn't that what this is all about anyways? An exchange of ideas?

Moral of the story: if you want to protect something, keep government out of it lol.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> #1- Its absolutly BS fear mongering and there were plenty lies and half truths by Utah conservatives and republicans on this issue. Period.
> #2 it is certainly a conspiracy to say Obama did this to poke Utah conservatives in the eye. There is absolutly no proof that was the motive of BE. None.
> #3 the AA absolutely leaves the discretion to the President that designated the monument, not yours, not mine....the Presidents discretion. I can give you my opinion on the issue, but it wasn't my discretion that was put into law by congress. I am not the President therefor my opinion or discretion doesn't matter on this issue, and now it will be the courts discretion, not your or my opinions.
> 
> Conservatives labeled Obama a devil and cried constantly just as much as liberals label Trump the worst ever and constantly cry about it. Both sides are snowflakes, fakes, liars, and will do whatever it takes to funnel an argument to defend their side or their guy. People like yourself and paddler are exactly what's wrong with politics in this country and are why what SS says is spot on. You're polarized and blind to the red side of the isle and paddler is polarized and blinded to the blue side. Falling in the middle and hating and liking some of what both sides are doing would do our country some good, unfortunately you and paddlers attitudes and actions are much more common place in our politics and country today.


This post is a perfect example of incorrectly assigning equivalency to both sides. You simply cannot say that half way between the actions of Trump and Obama is correct. Obama acted completely lawfully in the designation of Bears Ears. That is clear from the text of the AA and has been clarified by the courts. There is absolutely no legal justification for a subsequent president to modify any monument designated by a predecessor. None. To say that I am "exactly what's wrong with politics in this country" is entirely false. If I valued your opinion I would be offended. I support conservation and adhering to the laws of this country. Trump respects neither.


----------



## Huge29

19 pages in and Paddler still doesnt like it? I thought for sure he would have been convinced by now. What is the saying, someone convinced against their will is of the same mind still? I think this one has been argued 7 ways from Sunday by now. 
:deadhorse:
:deadhorse:
:deadhorse:
:deadhorse:
:deadhorse:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

You win paddler.... Have a nice weekend, I may actually be going down the Grand Staircase this weekend, sure glad it’s protected and undeveloped public land forever and I agree the courts will solidify that.


----------



## paddler

Huge29 said:


> 19 pages in and Paddler still doesnt like it? I thought for sure he would have been convinced by now. What is the saying, someone convinced against their will is of the same mind still? I think this one has been argued 7 ways from Sunday by now.
> :deadhorse:
> :deadhorse:
> :deadhorse:
> :deadhorse:
> :deadhorse:


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

A wise consistency must never waver. Never.

Paraphrasing Churchill


----------



## Springville Shooter

Here's my final word on the subject. Dunk is right, it's a subject worn thin. 

Paddler, your argument that there is "no legal justification" for modifying the actions of a former President is a true statement but only a half truth as there is also no legal precedent that would prevent this type of action. 

So, together, we will be making history on this issue as the challenging suits roll through the system ultimately making it to the SCOTUS. Then, there will be a ruling and a legal precedent that can be applied going forward. I will predict that the left will not like the result.

Without regard to any political party, I absolutely hold firm that any action created by the Executive branch unilaterally should also be able to be undone by that same office unilaterally. This is the only way that checks and balances can be maintained regarding the practice of pen-stroke politics. I believe it's in all our best interest to decry this type of action even if the result reperesents a "win for our side."

The founders wisely created checks and balances to limit Governmental power. It's up to us to ensure that it is maintained.

---------SS


----------



## Vanilla

Springville Shooter said:


> The founders wisely created checks and balances to limit Governmental power. It's up to us to ensure that it is maintained.
> 
> ---------SS


Exactly my problem overall with the AA. A power specifically reserved constitutionally to the legislative branch being delegated to unilateral action by the executive. Unlike some others, I don't base my decision on if something is good or not based upon the letter next to name of the politician doing it. I oppose EVERY president being able to do this. If someone thinks they need to have and area twice the size of Rhode Island as a national monument, then pass a law like we have to do for everything else.

As it pertains to our outdoor legacy here in Utah, I wonder what our hunting and fishing prospects would look like if left entirely up to the liberal left?


----------



## paddler

Well, Congress empowered the president to protect antiquities. Apparently, they didn't think that protecting each and every area should require an act of congress, so to speak. The president can act much quicker than Congress, our present do-nothing Congress is a perfect example of this. Again, the AA was in response to rampant looting in Chaco Canyon. In other words, the Act filled a need, allowing protections that would have never happened otherwise.

To say that any president may alter a NM designation makes no sense. The original intent of the Act was to protect these antiquities in perpetuity. If Congress wanted to allow a president to reduce or rescind a designation, they would have put such language into the Act. I don't think any president should be able to reduce or rescind NM designation unless there is a consensus among all shareholders that it makes sense. No previous alteration has been contested because apparently everybody involved thought it was a good idea. That is definitely not the case here. I think all presidents, regardless of party, should be able to exercise the power vested in them by Congress to protect our special places. And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> And that's all I have to say about that.


Doubt it. None of us are that lucky.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddler said:


> Well, Congress empowered the president to protect antiquities. Apparently, they didn't think that protecting each and every area should require an act of congress, so to speak. The president can act much quicker than Congress, our present do-nothing Congress is a perfect example of this. Again, the AA was in response to rampant looting in Chaco Canyon. In other words, the Act filled a need, allowing protections that would have never happened otherwise.
> 
> To say that any president may alter a NM designation makes no sense. The original intent of the Act was to protect these antiquities in perpetuity. If Congress wanted to allow a president to reduce or rescind a designation, they would have put such language into the Act. I don't think any president should be able to reduce or rescind NM designation unless there is a consensus among all shareholders that it makes sense. No previous alteration has been contested because apparently everybody involved thought it was a good idea. That is definitely not the case here. I think all presidents, regardless of party, should be able to exercise the power vested in them by Congress to protect our special places. And that's all I have to say about that.


Agreed


----------



## paddler

Rubbing Herbert's, et al, noses in it:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/busines...sault-on-public-lands-behind-is-emancipating/

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/edit...r-convention-doesnt-miss-utah-one-little-bit/

Funny, the editorial is on the left page, while the opposite page has a big ad touting Utah's Economic Summit with a photo of a smiling Herbert. Curious juxtaposition.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Rubbing Herbert's, et al, noses in it:
> 
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/busines...sault-on-public-lands-behind-is-emancipating/
> 
> https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/edit...r-convention-doesnt-miss-utah-one-little-bit/
> 
> Funny, the editorial is on the left page, while the opposite page has a big ad touting Utah's Economic Summit with a photo of a smiling Herbert. Curious juxtaposition.


I don't imagine you actually read the business section.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/busines...es-slip-as-millennials-drive-shift-in-habits/


> Industry retail sales totaled $18.9 billion from December 2016 through November 2017, down 6 percent from the previous 12 months, according to NPD Group, a market research company that tracks trends in two dozen industries.


OR peaked in Utah. Interesting the rest of the economy is exploding and OR is shrinking.

All is well in Utah. Here is the link to Herbert's State of the State speech if you want to see how good things really are in Utah. 
https://governorblog.utah.gov/2018/01/governor-herberts-2018-state-of-the-state-address/


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> I don't imagine you actually read the business section.
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/busines...es-slip-as-millennials-drive-shift-in-habits/
> 
> OR peaked in Utah. Interesting the rest of the economy is exploding and OR is shrinking.
> 
> All is well in Utah. Here is the link to Herbert's State of the State speech if you want to see how good things really are in Utah.
> https://governorblog.utah.gov/2018/01/governor-herberts-2018-state-of-the-state-address/


I read the article. No interest in what Herbert has to say, he lost me a long time ago. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to run down to Epic in the Prius.


----------



## Vanilla

"The eBays and Goldman Sachs and Adobes have [moved here] because of how the outdoor industry has showed the value public lands bring to the community"

Ha! These jokers taking credit for Utah's incredibly strong economy attracting major companies might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard from them. And they have said some insanely stupid (and dishonest) things over the years.

I was sad for a long time that the show left, and I'm still sad for the people they hurt by doing so, but now I say good riddance. Go get your "stronger beer," marijuana, and freedom from those crazy Mormons. Because now that the public has been completely shut out of Bears Ears, you will just have to find another outdoor paradise area to pimp off and exploit for your gain. (Oh wait...nothing has changed in Bears Ears...weird, but you'll still get all the financial benefits out of Utah's public lands you always have. Double weird.)


----------



## Springville Shooter

Pretty hard to make any intelligent case against Herbert’s performance as Governor.———SS


----------



## Vanilla

Springville Shooter said:


> Pretty hard to make any intelligent case against Herbert's performance as Governor.---SS


There are some things I disagree with, but in totality, there is an awful lot more good than bad. Even conceding I hate his position on public lands and public water, he's helped guide s ton of good things in Utah. And even on the monument discussion, he never said he wouldn't work with OR for a solution. The ultimatum he was given by OR on the conference call was asking him to do something that by law he couldn't unilaterally do. While trying to explain that he begged for more time to try to build the consensus to accomplish what they wanted, but the answer from OR was no. Basically, we want you to take action you can't legally take and we want it now, or we're gone. (Even though we had already decided to leave, knew what we were asking was impossible and illegal, but knew by asking it that it would make us look genuine to our supporters-even though we weren't)


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> There are some things I disagree with, but in totality, there is an awful lot more good than bad. Even conceding I hate his position on public lands and public water, he's helped guide s ton of good things in Utah. And even on the monument discussion, he never said he wouldn't work with OR for a solution. The ultimatum he was given by OR on the conference call was asking him to do something that by law he couldn't unilaterally do. While trying to explain that he begged for more time to try to build the consensus to accomplish what they wanted, but the answer from OR was no. Basically, we want you to take action you can't legally take and we want it now, or we're gone. (Even though we had already decided to leave, knew what we were asking was impossible and illegal, but knew by asking it that it would make us look genuine to our supporters-even though we weren't)


Revisionist history.

I disagree with Herbert on a broad variety of issues. Public lands is just one.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Revisionist history.


Ummmm, nope.


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...rush-falls-flat-as-no-one-bothers-to-show-up/

Things that make ya go hmmm...


----------



## Bax*

Vanilla said:


> https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...rush-falls-flat-as-no-one-bothers-to-show-up/
> 
> Things that make ya go hmmm...


I saw a similar article on KSL the other day.

I'm glad my theory was right. It's not economically viable for most businesses to mine these areas (at least currently).


----------



## Vanilla

Bax* said:


> It's not economically viable for most businesses to mine these areas (at least currently).


These claims were available to be made on Bears Ears prior to late December 2016, and they weren't made. Logic suggests there is a reason for that. Probably the same reason nobody is making them now, would be my guess.


----------



## High Desert Elk

As I have repeatedly said, the dry hole markers near Bears Ears prove the statements in the article.

Also, no infrastructure to transport any of it and to put roads in would be a NEPA nightmare. My experience in the past as a drilling engineer tells me that the topography on the surface is a tattle-tail to what lies beneath. An E&P company would spend millions trying to figure it out only to come up short.

The attached pic tells all. To the north is the Causeway, west is Bear's Ears itself, and to the south is Bluff.


----------



## paddler

Bax* said:


> I saw a similar article on KSL the other day.
> 
> I'm glad my theory was right. It's not economically viable for most businesses to mine these areas (at least currently).


Bears Ears was/is about uranium. Energy Fuels Resources lobbied for the reduction. Zinke and our politicians lied about it. Consistent pattern of behavior. The fact that uranium prices are down since Fukishima doesn't mean they always will be.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...rs-ears-national-monument-20171208-story.html

Maybe I'll go to Trump's parade and check out Zinke's flag.


----------



## Catherder

Bax* said:


> It's not economically viable for most businesses to mine these areas (at least currently).


Exactly, as we have discussed on here many times.

Of course, the local and state politicians continue to blame the evil Federal gubmint and the monuments for depriving the locals of all those high paying mining jobs and subsequent prosperity. :roll:

Anyone hear anything more on Stewart's plan to make part of the Staircase a National Park?


----------



## paddler

Some uranium guy is bullish on it's future. I think most people think the prices will remain low for a while. None of this should cloud the fact that Zinke, our local politicians and the Republicans in general are in the pockets of their donors and extraction industries. Their intent is clear.

Maybe that's why a teacher in Pennsylvania has seen a $1.50 raise per week because of the tax cut bill, enough to cover her Costco membership, but Trump will save $11 million/year and Exxon is seeing a $6 billion windfall. Nice.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paul-ryan-deleted-tweet-tax-150-pay-increase/


----------



## backcountry

Summary:

Environmental lobby's recent marketing claims about a run on mining within former BENM boundaries are fear mongering and unsubstantiated.

Same goes for the way that got into the news. 

Sadly, much of what we see the last decade is partisan hyperbole meant to raise funds for special interest groups. Keep your base in a feeding frenzy. That gets awkward when its our own organizations but its something we have to be vigilant about as individuals.

Its a shame as its never provides the space for thoughtful, reasonable, fact-based dialog. 

Not as worried about BENM as its back to status quo that has existed for ages. GSENM is in for major changes and we need serious local and national conversations about the implications. I know I for one don't want to see another National Park or small towns turned into gateway tourist villages. Not a ton of big game hunting in the area of the possible designation but it would influence our experience.


----------



## Catherder

A couple questions/comments;



backcountry said:


> I know I for one don't want to see another National Park or small towns turned into gateway tourist villages.


I agree with you on the NP, but *if* those small towns were able to see sustained economic growth and prosperity, compared to their current state, by embracing tourism in that manner, would you still be opposed?



backcountry said:


> Not a ton of big game hunting in the area of the possible designation but it would influence our experience.


It all depends on what the boundaries would truly be, but there could be some notable hunting loss. As PBH pointed out earlier, *access* to popular fishing and hunting areas outside the boundaries could be threatened as well.

Without a map of a proposed park, it is just guesswork at this point. I also haven't heard anything further about it since the original speech, which makes me wonder if it was a total non-starter or maybe Stewart wasn't really serious about it in the first place.


----------



## paddler

Concern over mining in BENM is legitimate, IMO. "Permanent" protections (we'll see what the courts say) against extraction were put in place by Obama. The Trump administration removed them at the behest of a uranium company. Only market forces are protecting those areas now, and those are subject to change. That's why conservationists object to Zinke's actions. And, he lied about the reasons. Thank you, Secretary Zinke.


----------



## backcountry

Catherder said:


> A couple questions/comments;
> 
> 
> 
> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I for one don't want to see another National Park or small towns turned into gateway tourist villages.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on the NP, but *if* those small towns were able to see sustained economic growth and prosperity, compared to their current state, by embracing tourism in that manner, would you still be opposed?
> 
> 
> 
> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a ton of big game hunting in the area of the possible designation but it would influence our experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all depends on what the boundaries would truly be, but there could be some notable hunting loss. As PBH pointed out earlier, *access* to popular fishing and hunting areas outside the boundaries could be threatened as well.
> 
> Without a map of a proposed park, it is just guesswork at this point. I also haven't heard anything further about it since the original speech, which makes me wonder if it was a total non-starter or maybe Stewart wasn't really serious about it in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the economic benefits of a National Park outweigh the overall negative impacts. And to be fair, many locals will only see minor improvement as most jobs are unsustainable service industry positions. NP gateway towns often result in geographic displacement for lower to middleclass residents who don't have capital to start businesses or afford home purchases. A handful will do really well but they are often outsiders.

I just don't think the economic benefits justifies the inevitable degradation of visitor experience and the massive resource impact. I can't see any benefit to the already overcrowded Calf Creek environs. Solitude will be all but gone in Death Hollow, Escalante River Corridor, Sand Hollow and likely down to Deer Creek region. Do we really want more tourists visiting our few remaining riparian areas?

Just a few thoughts. Its a complicated issue.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I'm not convinced the economic benefits of a National Park outweigh the overall negative impacts. And to be fair, many locals will only see minor improvement as most jobs are unsustainable service industry positions. NP gateway towns often result in geographic displacement for lower to middleclass residents who don't have capital to start businesses or afford home purchases. A handful will do really well but they are often outsiders.
> 
> I just don't think the economic benefits justifies the inevitable degradation of visitor experience and the massive resource impact. I can't see any benefit to the already overcrowded Calf Creek environs. Solitude will be all but gone in Death Hollow, Escalante River Corridor, Sand Hollow and likely down to Deer Creek region. Do we really want more tourists visiting our few remaining riparian areas?
> 
> Just a few thoughts. Its a complicated issue.


I tend to agree. Not sure why Stewart wants a small NP when we have 5 down that way already. What's his rationale? I'd prefer to leave well enough alone.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> I just don't think the economic benefits justifies the inevitable degradation of visitor experience and the massive resource impact. I can't see any benefit to the already overcrowded Calf Creek environs. Solitude will be all but gone in Death Hollow, Escalante River Corridor, Sand Hollow and likely down to Deer Creek region. Do we really want more tourists visiting our few remaining riparian areas?


This response is a bit funny to me, because this is exactly why many opposed the Bears Ears designation as a monument. 75% of the people that are vigorously advocating for Bears Ears to stay a monument had never been there or even heard about the region until it became a political hot bed. More people coming to some of these places is definitely not a good thing for those places.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think the economic benefits justifies the inevitable degradation of visitor experience and the massive resource impact. I can't see any benefit to the already overcrowded Calf Creek environs. Solitude will be all but gone in Death Hollow, Escalante River Corridor, Sand Hollow and likely down to Deer Creek region. Do we really want more tourists visiting our few remaining riparian areas?
> 
> 
> 
> This response is a bit funny to me, because this is exactly why many opposed the Bears Ears designation as a monument. 75% of the people that are vigorously advocating for Bears Ears to stay a monument had never been there or even heard about the region until it became a political hot bed. More people coming to some of these places is definitely not a good thing for those places.
Click to expand...

I wasn't a proponent of BENM myself for a myriad of reasons. And I agree, I think we need to abandon the old conservation model of designation that increases recognition and visitation.


----------



## BPturkeys

As the population of America grows, visitations, tourism etc will grow...that is just a fact of life. We are not really creating any more public lands. Management must be a nightmare for who ever is in charge.

Now, don't get me wrong because I am not taking literally, but we need to build a wall around our public lands. As a first step, a wall that discourages, limits, and regulates visitations by non- American citizens. These public lands belong to all US citizens, and not anyone else, and we absolutely deserve first and priority use of them.

Foreign tourist make up a large percent of visitors to our public lands, and sorry if I sound selfish here, but these are our public lands, and if non-citizens are over crowding them and destroying the experience for citizens, then they should be the first to be regulated away from its use.

Next time you stop in at Zions, or Bryce, or any of our public parks or monuments and find it surrounded with tour buses full of non-American citizens and you can't even get near the place, well, I am sorry, but I just don't care...it needs to be stopped.


----------



## Catherder

A couple more thoughts;

1.


backcountry said:


> I think we need to abandon the old conservation model of designation that increases recognition and visitation.


I don't necessarily disagree but a main pillar of our current conservation model is *preservation*. How do you accomplish preservation without the "hotspotting effect" you describe when an action takes place? One could say "take no action at all", but that potentially leaves any areas truly worth protection with a sword of Damocles hanging over them if certain resources are found that could be exploited, with the ensuing despoiling of the area.

2.


BPturkeys said:


> Foreign tourist make up a large percent of visitors to our public lands, and sorry if I sound selfish here, but these are our public lands, and if non-citizens are over crowding them and destroying the experience for citizens, then they should be the first to be regulated away from its use.
> 
> Next time you stop in at Zions, or Bryce, or any of our public parks or monuments and find it surrounded with tour buses full of non-American citizens and you can't even get near the place, well, I am sorry, but I just don't care...it needs to be stopped.


What about all the millions of dollars these tour buses full of foreigners spend here? What about all the jobs they create? Isn't this (jobs) the reason we hear from the local politicians for the actions they take? Truthfully, most of them go to the big National parks anyway and those will be crowded regardless, and with good reason, they are amazing places. There are far fewer foreigners in the more secluded areas.

The last thing I want if I'm recreating in a secluded area is to have a ranger inspect my citizenship papers or have to check in to a ranger station to show that I'm a true American before entry.


----------



## High Desert Elk

A certain volume of domestic tourists can provide the same congestion as foreigners will.

Think I'd rather deal with a polite Japanese than a rude Californian or New Yorker...


----------



## OriginalOscar

High Desert Elk said:


> A certain volume of domestic tourists can provide the same congestion as foreigners will.
> 
> Think I'd rather deal with a polite Japanese than a rude Californian or New Yorker...


Who then want to explain what's wrong with Utah and rural people and then offer their superior and enlightened outlook.


----------



## Springville Shooter

High Desert Elk said:


> A certain volume of domestic tourists can provide the same congestion as foreigners will.
> 
> Think I'd rather deal with a polite Japanese than a rude Californian or New Yorker...


Just my opinion, but I've lived and worked all around the country and it is my observation that Utah has the market cornered on rude people. Therefore, visitors from pretty much anywhere will probably improve the politeness level of our state. Just sayin'----SS


----------



## backcountry

Catheder,

Its s multi-faceted issue.

I would love to see us rethink the way we designate public lands as most of our systems are remnants of a different era. But I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon given bipartisanship seems to be in its death throes. I mean they gutted BLM 2.0 which had amazing potential to better reflect the diverse stakeholder needs.

For now, it means the state needs to stop its massive tourism campaign and rethink its strategy. Focus attention on areas that can sustain pressure, ie infrastructure, etc. Work with locals to develop long term strategies that respect culture and their goals alongside state thirst for tax revenue. Also better understand what experiences historic and current users want before forever altering it with massive increases in visitation. Scale any PR to what is sustainable there.

A NP centered around the Escalante and Calf Creek will come with major affects to the gateway towns but also the user experience in the area and surrounding environs. Has the state held meetings in Boulder and Escalante to survey opinions and concerns? Have they worked with specialist to understand the level of development that is possible in that corridor compared to what will be needed to protect the riparian systems (paved boardwalks, etc)? How much water will be utilized from local sources and what affect will that have on the Escalante ecosystem at large? Just to name a few concerns.

Coupling designation with industrial tourism is a double edged sword that often harms the very resource and experience we desire to protect. I posit this is especially true with the relatively few remaining healthy riparian ecosystems. (It was also a concern of BENM antiquities as funding for personnel was uncertain but visitation was/will sky rocket).


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Catheder,
> 
> Its s multi-faceted issue.
> 
> I would love to see us rethink the way we designate public lands as most of our systems are remnants of a different era. But I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon given bipartisanship seems to be in its death throes. I mean they gutted BLM 2.0 which had amazing potential to better reflect the diverse stakeholder needs.
> 
> For now, it means the state needs to stop its massive tourism campaign and rethink its strategy. Focus attention on areas that can sustain pressure, ie infrastructure, etc. Work with locals to develop long term strategies that respect culture and their goals alongside state thirst for tax revenue. Also better understand what experiences historic and current users want before forever altering it with massive increases in visitation. Scale any PR to what is sustainable there.
> 
> A NP centered around the Escalante and Calf Creek will come with major affects to the gateway towns but also the user experience in the area and surrounding environs. Has the state held meetings in Boulder and Escalante to survey opinions and concerns? Have they worked with specialist to understand the level of development that is possible in that corridor compared to what will be needed to protect the riparian systems (paved boardwalks, etc)? How much water will be utilized from local sources and what affect will that have on the Escalante ecosystem at large? Just to name a few concerns.
> 
> Coupling designation with industrial tourism is a double edged sword that often harms the very resource and experience we desire to protect. I posit this is especially true with the relatively few remaining healthy riparian ecosystems. (It was also a concern of BENM antiquities as funding for personnel was uncertain but visitation was/will sky rocket).


While what you wrote is solid and worth commenting on, I don't see an answer to the question I posed. That is, how do we accomplish *preservation* without either altering the site through inaction, exploitation, or abuse or loving it to death" with fame. I don't claim to have the answer either but I think Bears Ears seems to be a case in point. While the arguments over how it came about, how much to protect, and how much not to protect will likely never end between the partisan battle lines, one thing seems to be evident. Even the sinister Zinke (for Paddlers benefit) agrees that some of the area should be specially protected (he didn't recommend complete rescission of BENM). A few don't want any special protections, but most stakeholders do agree with this. Now, how to do it? Here are the options.

1. Do nothing. The area does not get "hotspotted", which is good from a preservation standpoint. However, Native American relics will continue to trickle out of there, locals and their ATV's will do their thing to the landscape, and yes, uranium prices could go up and mining could resume.

2. The Obama/Clinton approach. Use the Antiquities act and protect a sizable area. The benefits are that the area becomes protected from mineral exploitation and native artifacts and ruins are protected, assuming that the budget for law enforcement is allocated. As has been pointed out here, the downside is fame and an influx of visitors. If the surrounding infrastructure is prepared and regulations set up, I don't believe it is a fatal problem, but I recognize it is a huge challenge. A national monument of the type GSENM and Bears Ears does not negatively affect hunting, fishing, and most recreational activities.

3. Strict protection or a National Park. This would pull in the most resources to force the protection of the given area but also would cause the greatest alteration of recreational activities on the land. As we know, it would be the end of hunting, responsible ATV riding and other activities. Strict regulation of sensitive areas would probably eliminate the opportunity for many folks to enjoy some areas. Economically, it would probably provide the most benefits locally in the long run, but the greatest upheaval in the short term. A NP would also mean the greatest influx of visitors to main areas and the greatest need for infrastructure changes.

All of these options have pros and cons. I suspect that a combination of different approaches is best, but in the current partisan morass we are in I don't expect to see much real compromise.

Now a couple additional comments.

1. "For now, it means the state needs to stop its massive tourism campaign and rethink its strategy. Focus attention on areas that can sustain pressure, ie infrastructure, etc"

I certainly agree that we need to improve the infrastructure of our major tourist areas, but our "Big 5" National Parks,Lake Powell, ski areas and other places can handle the load. I still maintain that tourism needs to be a key component of our states economy, especially in the South. I am not anti extraction, but the world economics simply do not point to great wealth in coal and uranium is very iffy and currently low in price. Oil and gas have been incredibly cyclical. 5 years ago, the Uintah basin was in the midst of a boom and the economy was great. The price of oil dropped to current levels and there is real suffering there now. Enhanced tourism can diversify local economies and help with boom-bust cycles. If this requires an investment for infrastructure, I am all for it. It may also require regulation of sensitive areas if overuse poses a threat.

2. " A NP centered around the Escalante and Calf Creek will come with major affects to the gateway towns but also the user experience in the area and surrounding environs."

Fully agree. The more I look into Stewart's pronouncement, the more I suspect it is not likely to happen. From what I understand, the locals are opposed.

Hey, top of the page for all that verbiage.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Looters are going to loot no matter what. You cannot make a monument large enough to protect it all and a monument isn't needed to protect it. Federal law already does.

Looters are going to loot no matter what, just like a poacher is going to poach. However, after the spotlight recieved in San Juan County, I hardly doubt much, if any, will continue. 

This was really more of a feel good gesture.


----------



## Bax*

High Desert Elk said:


> Looters are going to loot no matter what. You cannot make a monument large enough to protect it all and a monument isn't needed to protect it. Federal law already does.
> 
> Looters are going to loot no matter what, just like a poacher is going to poach. However, after the spotlight recieved in San Juan County, I hardly doubt much, if any, will continue.


Agreed. This has been why I get so frustrated with the designation(s) in the first place. By drawing attention to an area by naming it a monument, it draws a big red bullseye on the area and people come out of the woodwork to visit. But with those visitors come disrespectful jerks that vandalize, litter, and pillage.

If visitors would just be respectful, I think most people could stomach the changes a little easier.

Obviously there are other challenges and concerns but this one strikes close to home for me.


----------



## backcountry

Catheder,

I don't know how to best describe my ideas without admitting it requires a paradigm shift that is unlikely in our current political climate and trajectory. We are hampered by the limitations of 100+ year old way of thinking about land protection. If I'm fully honest, I don't believe we should designate more national parks other than cultural and historic ones. And I think designating national monuments needs to be rarer. I think existing laws like FLMPA and the antiquities laws already provide a more flexible framework to protect these resources if....

we deal with the elephant in the room: a lack of a funding model that allows our agencies to properly function under existing law and needs. That was always the achilles heel of the BENM; no matter the name and minor change to policy, the antiquities would remain imperiled in our current system. Look at GSENM. How many backcountry rangers are there for the number of acres they oversee? I don't know the exact number but I'm pretty sure its in the single digits and it was never enough. And the antiquities of BENM are in a more perilous situation with a rise in visitation than just about anything in GSENM.

Increase funding and we can better utilize adaptive management techniques that have been slowly improved over the last few decades. And no matter how strong of a majority of our country wants to see a national monument no sustainable protections are going to happen without dealing with locals. Without their buy-in and cooperation federal management will always be hamstrung. A vast majority of tribal members and chapter houses support monument-like management but the majority of non-tribal members of Monticello and Blanding are resistant. And that is why we need to abandon our old, antagonistic paradigm. Until then we will continue to experience the physical and political incursions that have always undermined long term change in that area. We saw it with the original Sage Brush Rebellion and we are seeing it again Part Deux. 

The internet isn't a friendly place for such esoteric ideas but unless we start to recognize we can only force local citizens and cultures to change so fast then we are doomed to galvanize a long term resentment which causes the type of failure we are seeing. Brute force has only gotten us so far and as many of us feared it actually led to major losses. We just can't treat people the way we have in land management decisions without ultimately experiencing a form of "equal and opposite" reaction. That is not how we foster sustainable policy. And that is why I think the choice I recommend is we start "designation" processes (whether new designation or major changes to old policies) by inventorying local communities and working with them. 

Sadly, I think our polarized, antagonistic political systems and special interest group models are stubborn components of our American mindset. And the longer that goes on the less middle ground we have to alter our course. We are long past the Golden Age of resource management unless we reinvent our way of thinking and start the cycle over.


----------



## High Desert Elk

It's bad enough the tribal sovereignty card is played anytime that gov't questions a federal law within its internal structure, you don't want that outreach beyond reservation boundaries.

It would be like UT having jurisdiction and influence on management of lands in OH, MO, PA, and NY because of the ancestral (and religious) ties to those states.

If any antiquities in southwest UT were to be in peril, it is because if the new awareness of it. If half those people knew what I knew about northwest NM, it would be a looters paradise (and no, we are not talking about Chaco Canyon).


----------



## backcountry

The Antiquities in BENM have been steadily looted before the designation.


----------



## High Desert Elk

backcountry said:


> The Antiquities in BENM have been steadily looted before the designation.


There, and everywhere else...


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> There, and everywhere else...


Hence my point of funding. We also agree in the opinion that the BENM designation likely increased the risk.


----------



## High Desert Elk

But we also know from recent history is that the feds are watching and it was illegal then as well, without monument protection.


----------



## backcountry

We are on the same page, HDE, regarding existing laws.

I wish we would better monitor, investigate and prosecute within existing law before resorting to higher levels of policy. That might put us on a different page, not sure.

I will say from reports I have that only a small percentage of looting is investigated for prosecution. This isn't isolated to BENM but the concentration of antiquities there has a specific history of being damaged and looted. Most areas are limited on personnel and don't have the time to even deal with the number of reports they receive. I know this from working with federal employees in multiple areas of Utah. Most monitoring and reporting comes from employees doing it as a secondary or tertiary duty while already in the field. Or volunteers. 

Secrecy really is our best mechanism to protect antiquities no matter how controversial of a statement that is. Designation doesn't help with an area as big as BENM without a massive federal crew, which was never going to happen. I am fully aware how industrial development harms archaeological sites but a place like BENM already had direct and de facto protections from most development. A perspective that puts me in direct opposition with most environmentalist.

No matter, the areas encompassing BENM were already known and visited but the designation was a major spotlight on a fragile resource. And antiquities don't benefit from increased visitation.


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> I think existing laws like FLMPA and the antiquities laws already provide a more flexible framework to protect these resources if....
> 
> we deal with the elephant in the room: a lack of a funding model that allows our agencies to properly function under existing law and needs.


This is the elephant in the room for any management plan that could be pursued. From law enforcement to infrastructure, it affects everything. There are possible solutions, but none are popular. Increasing user fees, more taxes, other fees. Not a great way to gain popularity if you are a decision maker.



backcountry said:


> We just can't treat people the way we have in land management decisions without ultimately experiencing a form of "equal and opposite" reaction. That is not how we foster sustainable policy. And that is why I think the choice I recommend is we start "designation" processes (whether new designation or major changes to old policies) by inventorying local communities and working with them.


It is interesting that when one hears the different sides talk about the BENM issue, Jewell said that they talked to locals, they took public input, and were doing what they thought the public wanted. Zinke comes at the behest of the state politicians, holds meetings and says the same thing but comes to a very different solution.

Additionally, I don't think "locals" are a monolithic group. Some will be for more conservative approaches, others not so much. One thing that does seem to be prevalent in Southern Utah is distrust of government. That makes any solutions or even peace overtures difficult.

Hey, another TOTP.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> Jewell said that they talked to locals...


She did. It's just that she didn't tell you she meant locals in Washington D.C. 

The monument designation was a deeply divided issue, and everyone knew it. The reaction was predictable. There was no consensus, and still isn't. I've stated this before that the vast majority of the strong proponents of this did not even know Bears Ears existed before this became a hot button political topic. And even now, the vast majority of those people have never even seen the place.


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> She did. It's just that she didn't tell you she meant locals in Washington D.C.


Hey, some SUWA members could be considered local. ;-)

I suspect that both Jewell and Zinke talked to many "predetermined" audiences in their factfinding visits.



Vanilla said:


> The monument designation was a deeply divided issue, and everyone knew it. The reaction was predictable. There was no consensus, and still isn't. I've stated this before that the vast majority of the strong proponents of this did not even know Bears Ears existed before this became a hot button political topic. And even now, the vast majority of those people have never even seen the place.


I agree with this, but might submit that the issue has attracted partisans from both sides, neither of which knew squat about Bears Ears before it became the issue it has. It now is a "proxy war" in the debate about the Antiquities act and greater environmental policy.


----------



## paddler

No consensus was reached in the years before Obama designated BE. There will never be consensus in these matters. That's the reality of protecting antiquities. That's why the Act was established, that's why Obama and so many others dating back to Roosevelt have made designations. Why in the world would anybody expect otherwise?

I'd rather spend tax money on our public lands, both for infrastructure and staffing, than increase military spending.


----------



## grizzly

Serious questions...

The opponents of BENM say the Federal government was stealing jobs by limiting extraction industry via the BENM designation, but they then said the NM designation wasn't necessary because there were no viable natural resources to be extracted. Can these both be true?

The Chambers of Commerce in Escalante and Boulder were vocally opposed to the shrinking of GSENM. Do their opinions count as "locals"?

What is a "local"? Do you have to live in Monticello or Blanding? What about Mike Noel in Kanab, is he a "local"? What about liberal Obama supporters in Moab, are they "locals"? Is Ken Ivory on the Wasatch Front a "local"? What about Cortez, Colorado (across state lines, but geographically proximate)? What about the Native Americans that live in the area, are they "locals"? I guess I'm wondering if a "local" is geographic or political in nature.


----------



## Catherder

grizzly said:


> The Chambers of Commerce in Escalante and Boulder were vocally opposed to the shrinking of GSENM. Do their opinions count as "locals"?


If you favor shrinkage, then no, they are not! ;-) If you oppose, then not even Native Americans are as "local".



grizzly said:


> I guess I'm wondering if a "local" is geographic or political in nature.


That is what I am talking about. I would say political.


----------



## High Desert Elk

grizzly said:


> I guess I'm wondering if a "local" is geographic or political in nature.


For those of us that live "local" as in the Four Corners region, I'd say geographical. And for those of us with family ties, even more so...


----------



## Vanilla

grizzly said:


> The opponents of BENM say the Federal government was stealing jobs by limiting extraction industry via the BENM designation...


Not all opponents say that. Some of us are just against this kind of designation at all, regardless of the arguments for or against. I support constitutional powers for each branch of government, and get a little (or a lot) uncomfortable when we stray outside of those parameters.


----------



## paddler

grizzly said:


> Serious questions...
> 
> The opponents of BENM say the Federal government was stealing jobs by limiting extraction industry via the BENM designation, but they then said the NM designation wasn't necessary because there were no viable natural resources to be extracted. Can these both be true?
> 
> The Chambers of Commerce in Escalante and Boulder were vocally opposed to the shrinking of GSENM. Do their opinions count as "locals"?
> 
> What is a "local"? Do you have to live in Monticello or Blanding? What about Mike Noel in Kanab, is he a "local"? What about liberal Obama supporters in Moab, are they "locals"? Is Ken Ivory on the Wasatch Front a "local"? What about Cortez, Colorado (across state lines, but geographically proximate)? What about the Native Americans that live in the area, are they "locals"? I guess I'm wondering if a "local" is geographic or political in nature.


If you look at the map of uranium deposits you'll see that the new monument boundaries exclude the vast majority of them. The uranium company that lobbied for the reduction is in Canada, I think. Not that local.

It's clear that the Chambers of Commerce represent local business owners, so I think their opinions would logically be considered local.

In general, locals would typically mean folks that live in the vicinity. Noel is a special case. Seems every year he comes up with some BS legislation. This time he wants to ban municipalities from advocating for the protection of public lands. Now, if you want to advocate against protecting public lands, you're free to do so. See HB 136. What a guy!!


----------



## PBH

grizzly said:


> I guess I'm wondering if a "local" is geographic or political in nature.





High Desert Elk said:


> For those of us that live "local" as in the Four Corners region, I'd say geographical. *And for those of us with family ties, even more so*...


There's your answer. It is not geographical. It is not political. Rural Utah defines "local" as: whether or not your grandpa grew up in that area.

Those on the chamber of commerce in Escalante are not locals. They moved to the area to establish business and took up residency. Therefore they do not count and have no say. They are not ranchers and have not historically ranched the area. They did not lose their jobs when the sawmill closed, therefore they have no say. They do not collect government subsidy checks for alfalfa that they do not grow, so they have no say.

Locals are are a special breed down here. They "lost" (by way of selling for a profit) grazing allotments, then cry foul about having those rights "taken" from them. They talk often about the good 'ol days of the timber industry, and how the monument shut it down -- even though the mill closed years before the designation was ever mentioned. They complain, non-stop, about tourists - their very source of income. And they mention their shrinking economies, even while new business continue to spring up all over.

You know how many times I've heard my very own brother-in-law complain about those "Wasatch Front assholes" hunting "our" mountain (Boulder)? Guess where my brother-in-law lives? Yep: Wasatch Front. Irony.

Locals are weird.


----------



## High Desert Elk

^^^ I don't know, seems the (visual) opposition to BE's was/is pretty dang local..


----------



## paddler

It's not clear to me that locals, no matter how you define them, should have any more sway in the way our federal lands are managed than any other citizen. The Antiquities Act is an attempt to protect our lands for the greater common good, ie, all citizens, for current and future generations. As Thoreau said, "In Wilderness is the Preservation of the World." He was speaking of our American West. Not in the sense of wilderness designation, as that didn't exist at the time of his writing, but wildness, solitude, open, pristine expanses.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> Not all opponents say that. Some of us are just against this kind of designation at all, regardless of the arguments for or against. I support constitutional powers for each branch of government, and get a little (or a lot) uncomfortable when we stray outside of those parameters.


Even when those same powers are used to eliminate or rescind older designations?

I wonder how this idea of more local control should be defined as well. Should "locals" also have more input on hunting and fishing regulations? Like PBH alluded to, I have personally heard this argument made often. In fact, I remember back in the day when fishing regulations were being changed on the Provo River to allow some bait fishing and many fly fishermen were crying foul. Many of the people against the proposed changes claimed I should have no input because I don't live near the Provo River or fish it often. Now, I hear the same argument about the Bears Ears...it seems really absurd to me.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> It's not clear to me that locals, no matter how you define them, should have any more sway in the way our federal lands are managed than any other citizen.


I agree, they shouldn't. But that is part of the whole BE's designation and why it happened in the first place...


----------



## backcountry

Paddler,

One correction, the quote is "wildness" not "wilderness".

In General,

The old model is to designate land with little to no input from "locals", which as we are discussing has different meanings in different contexts. The old model only worked for so long but has also led to some of the most contentious if not regressive issues of our era. Its now failing us.

My ideas aren't about allowing locals disproportionate influence but recognizing designation often has disproportionate negative impacts on locals. Our systems and laws don't take that into consideration. This is true from loss of traditional economies and associated cultures to geographic displacement of lower to middle class employees of the service economy that defines tourism. Its a significant issue that has been sidelined for far too long. We are capable of better.

In our urgency to "protect" land we truly harm people. And that it turn leads to an equal and opposite social and political force that we are seeing the full weight of. We can accept the claims of the old models and their frameworks (opposition, "There will never be consensus in these matters") or foster new methods and relationships. But I firmly believe we can't continue down the current road and expect different outcomes from what we are currently seeing. I think we will continue to see escalation in both rhetoric and action from "both sides".

Per the broader implications of such a stance (DWR policy, etc)....I think we able to make nuanced individual choices without going down a slippery slope. For me the difference is that massive designations of GSENM and BENM influence well-established, unique economies and cultures that were wholesale displaced and discounted. Its a very specific situation. I don't believe its an apples to apples or even apples to oranges comparison to eliminating bait fishing on a local river, even if the "locals" there use similar logic. Changing one simple habit isn't the same as the unsustainable and massive pressure to change an entire community. I understand the concern but I think a thoughtful management framework is capable of dealing with the noticeable differences and create unique, sustainable solutions. I actually think the DWR RAC meeting structure, despite all of their tense difficulties, aims at an approach I am recommending before designating massive swaths of land. And that process will be slow and difficult but I wager it will produce better long term results than we are currently seeing.

Ironically, environmental luminaries like David Brower often new this was the keystone to sustainable land management. Despite all of his flaws and mistakes, including laying the foundation for our default contentious system of binary opposition, he recognized we needed local buy-in for sustainable change. His concept of "ecobanks" and comprehensive (ie landscape wide not the rather isolated structures we currently use) land management that incorporated all uses was an ideal we have yet to reach. In introspective and vulnerable moments later in life he freely admitted his mistakes and thought of more holistic solutions that respected the needs of diverse stakeholders. Still imperfect but I think it gives us a better target than we are currently shooting at.


----------



## paddler

Yep, "Wildness". Thanks, I thought I remembered it that way from American Lit in high school, but misread it when I quoted it. I like the correct quote better.

Regarding the BE designation, it doesn't seem the local economies will be adversely affected. There's no oil, coal or gas extraction happening or planned for the area, as there are no reserves. Grazing wouldn't be affected, hunting and fishing will remain the same, under the direction of the DWR. Maybe tourism would increase, which would bolster the local economies. The reduction in BE was done for a foreign uranium company, so was hardly the result of local input.


----------



## backcountry

I agree, I think wildness hits a bigger, more holistic ideal to consider.

You jump to many conclusions about rational for BENM reduction. Yes, the company solicited the administration but its recommended boundaries weren't remotely similar to current change. I don't believe your personal theory is an accurate representation of the situation.


----------



## wyoming2utah

backcountry said:


> The old model is to designate land with little to no input from "locals", which as we are discussing has different meanings in different contexts. The old model only worked for so long but has also led to some of the most contentious if not regressive issues of our era. Its now failing us.
> 
> My ideas aren't about allowing locals disproportionate influence but recognizing designation often has disproportionate negative impacts on locals.


This idea is subjective at best. Like PBH said, many of the locals claim "disproportionate" harm, but was that really the case. How can local ranchers, for example, claim harm from lost grazing leases when they sold those very leases for substantial profit? Same thing goes for those against the GSENM who claimed that it was the reason the sawmill was shut down in Escalante even though that sawmill was shut down before any designation. Perceived "negative impacts" aren't always real. It certainly can also be argued that these designations are also having a very real beneficial impact to many locals as well. I have a hard time, for example, feeling that the GSENM designation did not affect positively the owners of the new hardware store in Escalante or the Syretts of tropic who own Ruby's. The opposite can also be said--not designating the Bears Ear's or rescinding it could also have a huge negative impact on many local business owners...and, as a public school teacher, I would claim that increased tax revenue would have actually really helped local kids as well.

So, explain to me again how we have been failed by the antiquities act...?

I would agree, though, that public input--especially local public input--and local buy in will always help make land management or any local policies better in the long run.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I agree, I think wildness hits a bigger, more holistic ideal to consider.
> 
> You jump to many conclusions about rational for BENM reduction. Yes, the company solicited the administration but its recommended boundaries weren't remotely similar to current change. I don't believe your personal theory is an accurate representation of the situation.


Perhaps. All I know is that the company requested changes and Zinke lied about the motivation for the reduction. It appears now that the Trump administration is trying to block the release of documents related to the creation of the monuments:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/w...g-details-national-monument-decision-53057531

Call me reactionary, but this entire exercise was unnecessary.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Call me reactionary, but this entire exercise was unnecessary.


The designation? Couldn't agree more.


----------



## backcountry

There are spurious claims on both sides, including the sawmill from what I have seen. 

As BPH also said, many of the big business owners weren't locals at time of designation. One of my favorite resteraunts, and the biggest store front in Boulder, is a group of transplants. Many of the outfitters in Escalante are transplants. 

And I fully recognize its not binary. There are good and tourism is more recessions resilient and less prone to boom/bust cycles. My recommendation isn't to just accept the most extreme of local claims but to recognize designation is a complex issue with complex outcomes beyond the federal resources. After 100+ years of designation we should be able to recognize that and develop better tools. The massive designations of GSENM and BENM did not foster sustainable local buy-in. That is ultimately my concern and should be for anyone who land management to survive the predictable oscillations of the executive. 

And its important to highlight that I mentioned economy and culture. The culture of the GSENM environs has been noticeably changed by the designation. 

And to be honest, all economies and cultures change but we see noticeable resistance and insurgency when we force a sudden rate of change like GSENM. I am just advocating "locals" be allowed a more respected place at the table before designation so they have a say in the way and rate of change. For example, despite the flaws of PLI, if the Obama administration would have run with their recommendation with native stakeholder interest in management we would have a monument of 1.4 million acres instead of a couple hundred thousand. Environmentalist would had to accept a loss of a few thousand acres but we would have gained a million considering the current outcome. As well we would have satisfied much of the local LDS resistance in Monticello and Blanding. Just imagine if we would have chosen to go forward with that experiment instead of forcing a monument through the antiquities act? I posit that would have a big catalyst for more collaboration instead of the erosion of years of effort and programs we are seeing now. 

If nothing else I recommend we abandon this binary framework and do so with zeal. I forecast we have only seen the beginning of the match and the ugliness that will ensue.


----------



## High Desert Elk

backcountry - some of the locals in Blanding and Monticello against this may indeed be LDS, but church headquarters in SLC has nothing to do with this...


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> As well we would have satisfied much of the local LDS resistance in Monticello and Blanding.


Tell me more about this. I didn't realize the LDS church had weighed in on Bears Ears. I must have missed it.


----------



## backcountry

Really, guys, you are going to nitpick that generality? I said "local LDS" clearly implying a local demographic split (and being responsive to friends who prefer not to be called Mormons all of the time), not an organized church response. Are we really nitpicking whether or not the local, non-tribal demographics leans heavily LDS in San Juan County, especially the aforementioned towns of Monticello and Blanding, and that when you filter out the tribal members that they don't heavily reside in the "anti-BENM" camp? I've shown a vulnerability to correct mistakes in the past, an uncommon behavior on forums, but this seems to go too far. If we can't talk about population level trends than these conversations become :ballchain:. There were no insults and I'm standing as an ally to the "local" position.


----------



## Vanilla

Whoa, cowboy. I simply asked a question based upon something you wrote. It seemed there was something specific to the local LDS folk, and you made it sound like this was an LDS thing by what you wrote. Apparently that was not the intent based upon your super defensive response to a pretty simple question, however. 

I guess my follow up question would be why bring the religious label into at all it if it does not have a specific meaning? I don't recall anyone bringing up those "non-LDS out of state" people that are for BENM designation. I'm just not sure what LDS vs not LDS has to do with anything here in this discussion? Especially for someone decrying the divide that is occurring on this issue. Clearly, bringing religion into it is not the way to bridge gaps. 

Just one man's opinion.


----------



## Kwalk3

I thought it was an innocent distinction showing that there are a few different demographics in these locales surrounding both monuments, and these demographics tend to have very different worldviews and politics. No harm, no foul, in my book.

I'm mormon, for what it's worth, and didn't see it as any kind of slight.


----------



## PBH

grizzly said:


> What is a "local"? ... I guess I'm wondering if a "local" is geographic or political in nature.


I already explained this once. But Backcountry explained it better:



backcountry said:


> ...many of the big business owners weren't locals at time of designation. One of my favorite resteraunts, and the biggest store front in Boulder, is a group of transplants. Many of the outfitters in Escalante are transplants.
> 
> ...I am just advocating "locals" be allowed a more respected place at the table before designation so they have a say in the way and rate of change.


There you have it.

this is the exact mentality of Rural Utah communities. If you're grandpa wasn't born there, then you are a "transplant". You never become a local, and thus you are not "allowed a more respected place at the table". Your grandchildren _might_, assuming that the other transplants have forgotten that you too were a transplant.

what happens when you move away for a time, then come back? Does the place you lived while away affect your status (ie: SLC vs. Loa, or Kanab)? 
(sorry. I'm just stirring now...)


----------



## grizzly

I met with the leader of a Utah-based hunting organization yesterday that was ecstatic about the reduction in BENM because he said it would reopen all the roads and again allow hunting in that unit. He was flabbergasted when I told him that BENM didn't close existing roads and that I hunted bears there just this spring and noticed zero difference in access/management regardless of designation.

I had another Blanding local erroneously tell me ranchers were being forced off the Bears Ears. (If I posted his name, many people on here would know him.)

Combine that with signs posted around town that said, *"Bears Ears National Monument. Entrance Fee $100/vehicle/day before entering at Navajo Tribal Park, Monument Valley Arizona. No Wood Cutting. No Hunting. No ATV's"* and I have to take the "local opposition" with a grain of salt. I'll always respect an opposing view, but when it is based entirely on lies... its pretty hard to give it much weight in a discussion. If a person opposes something that doesn't even exist, do they actually oppose anything at all?

Granted, there is plenty of misinformation from the enviro-side of the NM debate as well, but I'll leave that for another time since this is more of a "local" conversation.

PS. My personal beliefs are that the Obama-era BENM was far too big. Frankly, much of the area is more conducive to remaining a National Forest than a increased layer of protection. I think the smaller Trump-era protections are probably where we should have started with from the beginning... it just took us a while to get there. There are certainly parts of BENM that deserve protection under The Antiquities Act, imo, just not the whole darn area.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Well, I'm pretty sure there are some non-LDS locals opposed as well, quite certain in fact.

But what does it matter and as Vanilla said - why even bring it up as though it has any merit or standing at all...?

It adds nothing to the dialog, until now. But you add the religious aspect of the tribal coalition, it does matter because that was part of the reason to the designation. I seriously doubt you are going to see a Sunday service take place at Mormon Pasture (yes, it's a real place, look on a USFS map)...


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Whoa, cowboy. I simply asked a question based upon something you wrote. It seemed there was something specific to the local LDS folk, and you made it sound like this was an LDS thing by what you wrote. Apparently that was not the intent based upon your super defensive response to a pretty simple question, however.
> 
> I guess my follow up question would be why bring the religious label into at all it if it does not have a specific meaning? I don't recall anyone bringing up those "non-LDS out of state" people that are for BENM designation. I'm just not sure what LDS vs not LDS has to do with anything here in this discussion? Especially for someone decrying the divide that is occurring on this issue. Clearly, bringing religion into it is not the way to bridge gaps.
> 
> Just one man's opinion.


Because rural, LDS populations often have a discreet, unique culture that I think is part of the equation. A large portion of my idea revolves around how we don't recognize the impact our land management decisions have on such groups. I didn't "bring religion" into the discussion as that phrase normally implies, ie mocking, judging or otherwise insinuating anything about the underlying doctrine. We would be wearing blinders not to recognize and admit its, the LDS culture, has always been part of the "local" equation there. That comes from research as much as taking the time to listen to "local" residents voluntarily bring the LDS component of their family roots and culture into the conversation. Like I said, it seems ridiculous not to admit the LDS component of the community is woven into the fabric of the issue and its one I discuss without insult or judgement.

Ironically, the ground I am trying to stake is ironically uncomfortable for both the stereotypical sides of the conversation. I'm just advocating a similar approach to the "local" population of Monticello and Blanding, with a noticeable LDS presence, as given to the native tribes by the monument activists. I value consistency in my ideas even when it doesn't align nicely with any ideology or partisan camp. Its why I harbor no animosity towards any of the players in this drama. I'm not convinced that is a controversial stance outside the opposition framework that begins the process by assuming their are winners and losers or right versus wrong.

Its also why I often admit my ideas leave me "homeless".


----------



## paddler

I'm perfectly comfortable with the Antiquities Act being utilized to preserve and protect federal lands for the good of all Americans. I really don't give a rats ass about locals who seem to have an exaggerated sense of ownership of those lands. You will never get buy in from them, any more than we'll reach consensus on so many other issues. 

This isn't over by a long shot. Even if the reductions are upheld in court, which is far from certain, I would hope that one of the first acts of our next president would be to restore the boundaries as designated by President Obama.


----------



## PBH

paddler said:


> ...I would hope that one of the first acts of our next president would be to restore the boundaries as designated by President Obama.


You really think Trump would do that?



(or did you mean in another 7 years?)


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> I really don't give a rats ass about locals who seem to have an exaggerated sense of ownership of those lands.


Why should they give the same about your idea of protection? While I agree with your view of protection much more than theirs, a subjective view about what is in their best interest doesn't foster any understanding.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the locals don't always do what's in the best interest of the land, because it's often inconvenient for them economically or culturally(at least in the short term.) I think it's important to ensure these areas are protected so we have places to hunt and fish.

Reasonable people can disagree about what level of protection is necessary to ensure a sustainable future of public land recreation.

I do, however, think it is a dangerous stance to take to not be willing to consider the impact on those locals and their lives, and to be so flippant about it. We're never going to be free from the pendulum unless we figure out a way to care about others' ideas and ideologies that we may disagree with.

I'm sick of over-corrections on both ends as part of some political game. I would much prefer both sides figure out a way to move forward with protections in a sustainable way.

Your comment struck a nerve with me, and is a perfect example of what makes a reasonable solution so hard. Of course I should probably have just kept this comment to myself.

#Goteamgo!


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> Why should they give the same about your idea of protection? While I agree with your view of protection much more than theirs, a subjective view about what is in their best interest doesn't foster any understanding.
> 
> For what it's worth, I agree with you that the locals don't always do what's in the best interest of the land, because it's often inconvenient for them economically or culturally(at least in the short term.) I think it's important to ensure these areas are protected so we have places to hunt and fish.
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree about what level of protection is necessary to ensure a sustainable future of public land recreation.
> 
> I do, however, think it is a dangerous stance to take to not be willing to consider the impact on those locals and their lives, and to be so flippant about it. We're never going to be free from the pendulum unless we figure out a way to care about others' ideas and ideologies that we may disagree with.
> 
> I'm sick of over-corrections on both ends as part of some political game. I would much prefer both sides figure out a way to move forward with protections in a sustainable way.
> 
> Your comment struck a nerve with me, and is a perfect example of what makes a reasonable solution so hard. Of course I should probably have just kept this comment to myself.
> 
> #Goteamgo!


Here's the thing. The economic impact of the designation, given there's no extraction and tourism is likely to increase, should be positive. I have not, therefore, neglected to consider the economic impact. And, I don't see the monument as an "overcorrection", but rather the best outcome possible. After years of Bishop's BS PLI and congressional inaction, the Obama administration solicited and listened to input from all shareholders, then took appropriate action. To call it an overcorrection is a mischaracterization, as it implies a false equivalence between the views of some locals and the public at large. Indeed, support for monuments nationally is strong.

I simply will not engage with locals who spread false information as shown in a post above. Doing so is as futile as trying to have a conversation with as those who support ranchers who refuse to pay grazing fees, or birthers, or others who have no regard for truth or the rule of law.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I simply will not engage with locals who spread false information as shown in a post above. Doing so is as futile as trying to have a conversation with as those who support ranchers who refuse to pay grazing fees, or birthers, or others who have no regard for truth or the rule of law.


You've exhibited very well how futile these discussions can be.


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> You really think Trump would do that?
> 
> 
> 
> (or did you mean in another 7 years?)


Ha! This made me el oh el.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Here's the thing. The economic impact of the designation, given there's no extraction and tourism is likely to increase, should be positive. I have not, therefore, neglected to consider the economic impact. And, I don't see the monument as an "overcorrection", but rather the best outcome possible.


So now a community's economy is to be decided and planned at a federal level? You mean a federal entity knows what's best for a bunch of backwards locals? You ever been to Blanding and Monticello? Seems those towns are doing just fine and have been for quite some time.

The Antiquities Act is hardly the right vehicle to protect federal lands. As the AA was formed in response to Chaco Canyon, I wonder why I am not allowed to shoot coyote's there? After all, the entire floodplain is now protected federal land...


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> I thought it was an innocent distinction showing that there are a few different demographics in these locales surrounding both monuments, and these demographics tend to have very different worldviews and politics. No harm, no foul, in my book.
> 
> I'm mormon, for what it's worth, and didn't see it as any kind of slight.


Let him own his statement. It was bigoted towards LDS.

Progressives can't see themselves in the mirror. Lacking self awareness they are biased.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> So now a community's economy is to be decided and planned at a federal level? You mean a federal entity knows what's best for a bunch of backwards locals? You ever been to Blanding and Monticello? Seems those towns are doing just fine and have been for quite some time.
> 
> The Antiquities Act is hardly the right vehicle to protect federal lands. As the AA was formed in response to Chaco Canyon, I wonder why I am not allowed to shoot coyote's there? After all, the entire floodplain is now protected federal land...


Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My point was that the local economies would not be negatively impacted by the designation. I haven't been down that way in a long time, but I'm confident they'll survive BENM just fine. Just as have the towns around GSENM.

I couldn't disagree with you more about the Antiquities Act. History clearly shows your opinion is incorrect.


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> Let him own his statement. It was bigoted towards LDS.
> 
> Progressives can't see themselves in the mirror. Lacking self awareness they are biased.


It most certainly wasn't Oscar. I would submit that you are equally as biased as any of the most progressive here on this forum. Being over-eager to point out biases in others without acknowledging your own isn't entirely helpful to respectful and beneficial conversation.

Read into backcountry's statement whatever you will. I don't think there was any ill-intent in his statement. I think it was a fairly simple observation of the political proclivities of some of the historically LDS residents of the area, juxtaposed against the often different politics of some of the other "local" newcomers and the tribes(All 3 of which should rightly be considered "LOCAL.") Perhaps the conversation could have been had without the religious descriptor, but I don't find it's use to be problematic.

I didn't see him making a moral judgment about which side was right or wrong, just that the disparate viewpoints all ought to be considered equally when talking about "local" support, etc.

Whatever the final result is, I hope that the greater Bears Ears area is open to hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation in perpetuity. A shared passion for hunting/fishing and being outdoors is why we are all here on this forum. Hopefully, no matter how much we disagree with each other about methodologies and ideologies, we can still find a little unity in the great benefit of public land.


----------



## paddler

Perhaps backcountry's verbiage was a bit unfortunate. Maybe he should have said "non-tribal" folks, or "newcomers", since the Native Americans significantly predate the white settlers. His statement was accurate, however, because many rural areas in Utah are predominantly LDS. It's not a religious issue, obviously. Hey, TOTP!


----------



## backcountry

OriginalOscar said:


> Let him own his statement. It was bigoted towards LDS.
> 
> Progressives can't see themselves in the mirror. Lacking self awareness they are biased.


Definitely not bigoted towards the LDS, especially those in San Juan County.

Bigoted: adj: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others

To be bigoted to the LDS I would have to assume my beliefs are superior to their's or intolerant of their's. I was advocating that the "local", rural LDS culture actually be given respect and place at the table. I was allying myself with them and stating there are no inherently superior views (ie criticism of winner vs loser, right vs wrong mentality) in this contentious issue.

The claim is ironic given how I constantly criticize Paddler's actions on the forum. But even then its not his opinions on land management I challenge, which I assume are hard earned reflections of his values.

Am I biased? Yes, we all are. Its what we do with that bias that matters. And after a decade of environmentalist influence it took alot of introspection and self-awareness to abandon the notion that there is one definition of conservation that is "right". Ironically, many of my more liberal friends would laugh at your notion that I am bigoted towards LDS or more broadly towards conservative communities. In life, and on this forum, I stand up against those who seem to think there are black and white solutions or clear winners and losers out of the gate; transplanting myself to southern Utah this last decade was an eye opener in this regard and radically changed my views and opinions. I have intentionally immersed myself in a community that has changed me, which is the opposite of bigotry.

By no means am I perfect or superior. I fully aware I am highly imperfect and therefor my ideas are as well. Challenge the tact or merit of the demographic descriptor, others have, or my other ideas but its an unsubstantiated claim to call me "bigoted towards LDS". When my ideas are challenged in good faith and with substance I am more than willing to change. Its why I ultimately couldn't support BENM.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Challenge the tact or merit of the demographic descriptor, others have, or my other ideas but its an unsubstantiated claim to call me "bigoted towards LDS". When my ideas are challenged in good faith and with substance I am more than willing to change. Its why I ultimately couldn't support BENM.


My original question wasn't even a challenge, simply a legitimate question asking what I missed. Your response definitely did not exhibit what you're describing above, but was super defensive and lashing out. That leads me to believe that there was more to the comment than you are suggesting, however I don't view the comment as bigoted. I do challenge the merit of the designation. Not sure why the religious label was necessary or helpful in any way, shape, or form. You simply could have said alleviated the local concerns, instead of the local LDS concerns. You qualified it, nobody else. Can't really blame people for questioning it. I'm still trying to figure out what I missed or how the designation is helpful.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Perhaps backcountry's verbiage was a bit unfortunate. Maybe he should have said "non-tribal" folks, or "newcomers", since the Native Americans significantly predate the white settlers. His statement was accurate, however, because many rural areas in Utah are predominantly LDS. It's not a religious issue, obviously. Hey, TOTP!


Actually, it is a religious issue, read what the tribal coalition says about it.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My point was that the local economies would not be negatively impacted by the designation. I haven't been down that way in a long time, but I'm confident they'll survive BENM just fine. Just as have the towns around GSENM.
> 
> I couldn't disagree with you more about the Antiquities Act. History clearly shows your opinion is incorrect.


Not putting words in your mouth, just asking questions for clarification on your viewpoint as to why this is such a good thing for everyone down there because they must not be educated enough to see the advantages.

This whole monument thing with the Antiquities Act protecting federal land and preserving hunting opportunities is not an incorrect "opinion" as the same thing was used for Chaco Canyon and yet I cannot call in and shoot a coyote there.

To think the Antiquities Act is the saving policy to federal land forever is nonsensical at best.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla,

You didn't ask a question. You made one of your classic passive statements.



Vanilla said:


> Tell me more about this. I didn't realize the LDS church had weighed in on Bears Ears. I must have missed it.


And I've explained my usage and how it fits in with the issue. We are at an impasse if you continue to disagree without offering any constructive criticism on how its an invalid demographic descriptor.


----------



## Vanilla

I have never said it was invalid, I said it was unnecessary and not helpful. Unless you're trying to suggest that being LDS or the LDS church has something to do with this, it is not necessary, nor helpful. There are lots of labels we can throw on groups of people, religious, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc etc that describe groups on any side of any issue out there. But when those labels do not explain why that group is in support or opposition, it is not really helpful to point out the label, regardless of whether the label is "valid," as you put it. It generally is just used to divide the issue further. And that is exactly what your comment has done here. Heck, even Paddler is saying your word choice was "unfortunate"! There is your constructive criticism. 

Of course, you can just throw out another "we're at an impasse and it's your fault" again. I still want to know what that religious label does to further the discussion or help ferret out the issues surrounding Bears Ears. You haven't answered that. You used a cop-out, and deflected back to me. 

Now, I could go off into commentary land and give my opinion of your comments and why I think you're lashing out at me, (similar to how you did with me) but that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation or furthering the discussion. So while you're being so introspective and open-minded about this issue all the time, maybe you can just tell me why the qualifier of "local LDS resistance" was needed or helpful to this discussion over simply saying "local resistance." What about adding "LDS" and bringing the LDS church into this differentiates from the more general statement? That is what you can answer for me. Or not. Either way, I won't lose any sleep over it. But I will continue to point out things that are amiss when I see them.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> I have never said it was invalid, I said it was unnecessary and not helpful. Unless you're trying to suggest that being LDS or the LDS church has something to do with this, it is not necessary, nor helpful. There are lots of labels we can throw on groups of people, religious, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc etc that describe groups on any side of any issue out there. But when those labels do not explain why that group is in support or opposition, it is not really helpful to point out the label, regardless of whether the label is "valid," as you put it. It generally is just used to divide the issue further. And that is exactly what your comment has done here. Heck, even Paddler is saying your word choice was "unfortunate"! There is your constructive criticism.
> 
> Of course, you can just throw out another "we're at an impasse and it's your fault" again. I still want to know what that religious label does to further the discussion or help ferret out the issues surrounding Bears Ears. You haven't answered that. You used a cop-out, and deflected back to me.
> 
> Now, I could go off into commentary land and give my opinion of your comments and why I think you're lashing out at me, (similar to how you did with me) but that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation or furthering the discussion. So while you're being so introspective and open-minded about this issue all the time, maybe you can just tell me why the qualifier of "local LDS resistance" was needed or helpful to this discussion over simply saying "local resistance." What about adding "LDS" and bringing the LDS church into this differentiates from the more general statement? That is what you can answer for me. Or not. Either way, I won't lose any sleep over it. But I will continue to point out things that are amiss when I see them.


First, I have been challenged in the past and changed how I described "local" resistance. The fact is Navajo make up the majority of San Juan County and most of them support the monument. So I was being specific.

And I have supported and clarified my point and you haven't engaged that, Vanilla. Its your MO not to spend time analyzing the comments of others and their merits but to go after the messenger. Pointing out how your comment was neither a question and how it was passive is actually a counter to your invalid claim of asking a genuine question.

You can go back to my statements about discreet, unique LDS cultures of southern Utah and how I think they deserve consideration in how monuments disproportionately would affect them. You haven't offered any constructive criticism to that notion. In this case the use of LDS is no different than the demographic descriptor of Navajo, as both locally encompass much more than the name implies, they come with culture and history in the area. The Navajo had negotiated influence on the monument, which I supported, so its only consistent of me to recognize the other major culture in the area and consider how they should also have a voice.

If its uncomfortable talking about the broader cultural aspects of the designation, sorry, that was not the goal. Demographic descriptors only divide if they are used as weapon, which I didn't. But its use reflects a reality and its an important variable in why I could not support the monument. Its an explicit component local LDS folks have used in their statements to me so I consider it an appropriate idea. That puts me at odds with environmentalist and much of the left, not the "local LDS".

PS....."Local LDS" doesn't inherently imply the church, according to my friends who asked me not to call them Mormon. I use the word church when talking about the organized religion, not its followers. I consider those different subjects and write accordingly.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Its your MO not to spend time analyzing the comments of others and their merits but to go after the messenger.


One last question, since this is all me that is causing our impasse and you are so open minded about this whole deal...

Would you say that this statement above is analyzing my comments, or going after the messenger? You clearly are not willing to do what you are demanding of me. And that's okay, it's the internet, after all. Just don't pretend you are while criticizing others. This certainly is not the first time or issue this has happened on this forum.

Peace and love, backcountry. I'll bow out of this one at this point. You've got your perspective, and I've got mine. Who is right, and who is wrong? I guess that depends on whose lens you're looking through at the moment.


----------



## backcountry

Nice try, fundamentally different.

You asked for me to clarify my use and you continued to make demands without respecting the fact I had answered your "question". I answered it multiple times and you have yet to engage the content of that response. I actually did live up to my own expectations but at some point, when there is a pattern, its fine to call out a lack of good faith, like your last few responses highlight. The impasse happened because you refuse to deal with the the actual ideas and resort to passive comments. 

Your strategy criticized here is as pernicious as it is common.

Swing and a miss.

Nonetheless, I'll continue to immerse myself in diverse and divergent views and will change my perspective when they are compelling and well reasoned.


----------



## Vanilla

I concede to your enlightened, superior presence and existence. Thumbs up, good sir.







#totp


----------



## backcountry

Here, I'll boil it down for you. You asked me to clarify and explain how its related:

1) BENM was significantly justified by the importance to "tribal" and/or "Navajo" concerns/interests. This is as much for history as cultural reasons. If you disagree with the use of such demographic descriptors, than explain how the "local LDS" do not have a similar history and culture tied to the area.

2) I posited that massive monuments disproportionately affect "local LDS" economies and heritage and therefor should have more time at the table before designation. Do you disagree? If so, explain to me how the "local LDS" are not a point of concern given the history, economies and discreet culture of the region.

Until you deal with the content of the response to your very "question" its fair to highlight the lack of good faith that started with a passive comment below:



Vanilla said:


> Tell me more about this. I didn't realize the LDS church had weighed in on Bears Ears. I must have missed it.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> I concede to your enlightened, superior presence and existence. Thumbs up, good sir.
> 
> #totp


Unwilling to actually contribute a comment of substance to the very response to your "question"? These passive and passive aggressive remarks are examples of bad faith engagement.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Not putting words in your mouth, just asking questions for clarification on your viewpoint as to why this is such a good thing for everyone down there because they must not be educated enough to see the advantages.
> 
> This whole monument thing with the Antiquities Act protecting federal land and preserving hunting opportunities is not an incorrect "opinion" as the same thing was used for Chaco Canyon and yet I cannot call in and shoot a coyote there.
> 
> To think the Antiquities Act is the saving policy to federal land forever is nonsensical at best.


So, in what ways is the BE designation going to have negative economic impacts on local communities? Real, not imagined impacts.

Chaco Canyon was designated over 100 years ago. The BE designation clearly states that hunting will continue under the auspices of the DWR. I suppose there are coyotes in BE.


----------



## Dunkem

-O,--O,--O,-


----------



## Catherder

Not sure we are done with this topic or not, but here is an article I read today about the uranium industry that relates to the BENM discussion. It doesn't land haymakers for either side of the BENM debate but I thought it was interesting and pertinent.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-like-uranium-its-another-for-him-to-save-it/


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> Not sure we are done with this topic or not, but here is an article I read today about the uranium industry that relates to the BENM discussion. It doesn't land haymakers for either side of the BENM debate but I thought it was interesting and pertinent.
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-like-uranium-its-another-for-him-to-save-it/


Good stuff.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

I'm much more interested in our vibranium supply. I need some of that before hunting season.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> So, in what ways is the BE designation going to have negative economic impacts on local communities? Real, not imagined impacts.
> 
> Chaco Canyon was designated over 100 years ago. The BE designation clearly states that hunting will continue under the auspices of the DWR. I suppose there are coyotes in BE.


You missed the point and I'll leave it at that...


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Not sure we are done with this topic or not, but here is an article I read today about the uranium industry that relates to the BENM discussion. It doesn't land haymakers for either side of the BENM debate but I thought it was interesting and pertinent.
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-like-uranium-its-another-for-him-to-save-it/


So, it looks like economic factors will protect the ares removed from BE by the Trump administration at the behest of the uranium industry, unless their lobbyists are successful in getting Congress to mandate quotas. Wonderful. Thank goodness Kazakstan doesn't give a crap about their environment.



High Desert Elk said:


> You missed the point and I'll leave it at that...


Please explain.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> I'm much more interested in our vibranium supply. I need some of that before hunting season.


Indeed.

Though, I am not sure I would go up against a Wakandian Rhino even with vibranium. They look a little too fierce for my blood. I wonder what they rate on the HITS system?


----------



## Catherder

A few comments here and there.

1.


Vanilla said:


> I'm much more interested in our vibranium supply. I need some of that before hunting season.


I understand all deposits of vibranium are in Illinois. Environmental concerns are modest at this time. Stark industries is being sued for antitrust/monopoly activities however.

2.


backcountry said:


> Though, I am not sure I would go up against a Wakandian Rhino even with vibranium. They look a little too fierce for my blood. I wonder what they rate on the HITS system?


How many points are needed to draw a Wakandian rhino tag? Didn't Heather Farrar draw this tag in the Expo?

3.


paddler said:


> So, it looks like economic factors will protect the ares removed from BE by the Trump administration at the behest of the uranium industry, unless their lobbyists are successful in getting Congress to mandate quotas. Wonderful. Thank goodness Kazakstan doesn't give a crap about their environment.


Yep, pretty much. But even if the uranium interests succeed in talking Trump into helping them, they will be getting 25 % of an ever decreasing domestic uranium demand pie. With current stockpiles, the BENM area should be quite safe until the next liberal administration comes in and changes everything again. Ain't the free market system great? ;-)

4. It looks like at least some Southern Utah politicians and our legislature are on board for the National Park.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...-support-for-new-escalante-national-park.html

(Cited the D news so the conservatives here would accept the article. ;-) )
These resolutions are typically not worth the paper they are written on, but it does demonstrate some local support for the idea. I also think that the politicians know that coal, logging, and uranium jobs are not forthcoming with the designation changes and they'd better support the one sector that is demonstrated to offer a real opportunity at growth. Even if it is the despised tourism sector.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> 2.
> 
> How many points are needed to draw a Wakandian rhino tag? Didn't Heather Farrar draw this tag in the Expo?


Post. Of. The. Year!

Well played. Well played. (slow clap...)

And I'd shoot one of those things. Can you imagine the aphrodisiac qualities from the horn of a vibranium filled Wakandian rhino???? Sign me up!


----------



## Daisy

*Why am I not shocked about this:*

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/...al-monument.html?smid=tw-nytclimate&smtyp=cur


----------



## BPturkeys

Well dah.

Look, someone told Zinke "we got a problem here" so Zinkie says "give me a couple weeks and I'll talk to a few guys I know and see what can be done". ..to make a long story short...Zinke was handed a map put together by the Oil/gas/unranium guys and fed through the beloved Orin Hatch's office...his response, "thanks boys, I'll travel around on vacation for a couple more weeks and then we'll get 'r done". End of story


----------



## paddler

BPturkeys said:


> Well dah.
> 
> Look, someone told Zinke "we got a problem here" so Zinkie says "give me a couple weeks and I'll talk to a few guys I know and see what can be done". ..to make a long story short...Zinke was handed a map put together by the Oil/gas/unranium guys and fed through the beloved Orin Hatch's office...his response, "thanks boys, I'll travel around on vacation for a couple more weeks and then we'll get 'r done". End of story


Gee, who is surprised that Zinke lied? Once again, the Democrats, in an open, lengthy and public process and after thorough research and with input from all shareholders come up with a balanced approach between development and conservation, the Republicans come along with a secretive, sham review, then do the bidding of their industry donors. As Gomer Pyle said, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!".


----------



## ted

Daisy said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/...al-monument.html?smid=tw-nytclimate&smtyp=cur


One of the most depressing articles I've read in a while. Pair that with HB272 and it's pretty clear what our elected leaders' land transfer movement is all about.

What frustrates me just as much, if not more, than the full-throated lying (they are politicians, after all) is that this has become a partisan issue. We all benefit from our public lands.

I've voted Republican and I've voted Democrat, but I'll never vote for someone who wants to sell (or lease) our country to private interests.


----------



## Vanilla

Once again, we’re getting caught up in the weeds of SITLA lands. I don’t know what else can be said on that topic than has already been said?


----------



## ted

Vanilla said:


> Once again, we're getting caught up in the weeds of SITLA lands. I don't know what else can be said on that topic than has already been said?


I can't speak for anyone else, but from where I sit this story is more about the legislative process than SITLA. We went from a long, inclusive process to a short, exclusive one that very intentionally privileged resource extraction over other uses. That's a problem for me, since hunting and fishing fall into the "other uses" category.


----------



## Vanilla

But the administrators of SITLA lands are constitutionally MANDATED to advocate for this very thing. So when people come on here and say, “See! Look! I told you!” it just falls on def ears for anyone that chooses to be educated so they can understand facts. Some people want to do that, some don’t. I can do nothing for those that don’t. 

I don’t want to see these lands turned into oil rigs any more than anyone else here does. I’m still hoping to kill a giant bull elk on the Bears Ears National Monument. But goodness, let’s understand SITLA’s role and constitutional mandate before we try to act like this is a smoking gun of some sort. Because it’s not.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Vanilla said:


> But the administrators of SITLA lands are constitutionally MANDATED to advocate for this very thing. So when people come on here and say, "See! Look! I told you!" it just falls on def ears for anyone that chooses to be educated so they can understand facts. Some people want to do that, some don't. I can do nothing for those that don't.
> 
> I don't want to see these lands turned into oil rigs any more than anyone else here does. I'm still hoping to kill a giant bull elk on the Bears Ears National Monument. But goodness, let's understand SITLA's role and constitutional mandate before we try to act like this is a smoking gun of some sort. Because it's not.


When you draw, let me know. I have some awesome places I learned while doing the general archery


----------



## grizzly

Vanilla said:


> But the administrators of SITLA lands are constitutionally MANDATED to advocate for this very thing. So when people come on here and say, "See! Look! I told you!" it just falls on def ears for anyone that chooses to be educated so they can understand facts.


_SITLA is required to "seek to optimize trust land revenues and increase the value of trust land holdings consistent with the balancing of short and long-term interests, so that long-term benefits are not lost in an effort to maximize short-term gains," and "maintain the integrity of the trust and prevent misapplication of its lands and its revenues." *As trustee, SITLA must "manage the lands and revenues generated from the lands in the most prudent and profitable manner possible, and not for any purpose inconsistent with the best interest of the trust beneficiaries."*_ https://datatoolkits.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/managing-state-trust-lands/state/ed-funding-ut.pdf

I have been told that SITLA currently contributes .5-.9% of funding to Utah education. I can't verify that anywhere but I found these numbers via the link above...

Utah Total Education Spending - $3,173,804,83
Federal Funds - $269,727,658
Local Funds - $999,579,147
Other Sources - $260,813,602
State Funds - $1,635,296,427
SITLA Funds - $8,388,000

In the year referenced above, SITLA provided .26% of funding for education. *That is 1/4 of 1%.* How much public access are you willing to divest for that type of return?

PS. If somebody has more recent numbers, feel free to post them up. I just wasn't able to find any.


----------



## paddler

ted said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but from where I sit this story is more about the legislative process than SITLA. We went from a long, inclusive process to a short, exclusive one that very intentionally privileged resource extraction over other uses. That's a problem for me, since hunting and fishing fall into the "other uses" category.


If we're talking about the BE reduction, this isn't a SITLA deal. BE is mostly federal land, SITLA inholdings were just 109,000 acres of the 2 million, so just over 5%. And, those inholdings could have been exchanged. But:

https://trustlands.utah.gov/sitla-board-meets-to-discuss-trust-lands-within-new-monument/

Trying to blame SITLA for reducing BE is incorrect and only conflates the issue. This is about folks like Energy Fuels and other extractors getting their way with America's public lands and our public officials (Zinke) lying about it. It's not a legislative issue, either, as Obama designated BE after Bishop's PLI failed and Congress couldn't pass any legislation at all. It's also about our Republican elected officials wanting, as always, to favor extraction and exploitation of our public lands over conservation, and also about Trump wanting to erase Obama's legacy. There was nothing "constitutionally mandated" about the reduction.

The designation was done in an open, lengthy, thoughtful and deliberate way by a Democratic administration, the reduction was done deceitfully, in secret, with input mostly from extractors, by the current Republican administration. Twenty four beers in a case, twenty four hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Vanilla

grizzly said:


> In the year referenced above, SITLA provided .26% of funding for education. *That is 1/4 of 1%.* How much public access are you willing to divest for that type of return?


I'm personally not comfortable with giving up public access for any type of return. I also realize when it comes to SITLA lands, that's not my choice, nor does my voice matter. It's just the way it is, and that will not and cannot change. These lands are not public lands as we like to know them. Beating a dead horse here, but I guess I'll have to as long as people keep bringing SITLA lands into this discussion. It's factually inaccurate and completely misleading to do so.


----------



## paddler

SITLA is part of the discussion about public lands. SITLA land isn't really public, which is why the DNR pays SITLA to allow access. It's not clear to me that SITLA played a role in the proposed reduction of our monuments, however, the blame for that belongs elsewhere.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> SITLA is part of the discussion about public lands. SITLA land isn't really public, which is why the DNR pays SITLA to allow access. It's not clear to me that SITLA played a role in the proposed reduction of our monuments, however, the blame for that belongs elsewhere.


It's simply a response to the article posted from the NY Times.

And I disagree that SITLA is part of the discussion about public lands. As you accurately stated, they are not really public lands. Hence the question of why would we continue to discuss them along with public lands? Over, and over, and over again...


----------



## backcountry

So I read the NYTimes article and followed the Energy Fuels hyperlink and it wasn't anything other than a Google notification about a meeting. I will admit I haven't printed, read or notated all 20,000 pages of acquired documents either so I could clearly be missing something. But from what I have seen Energy Partners still only asked for a minute parcel exclusion that doesn't explain the millions of acres removed. In fact, it sounds like there were more SITLA requests in the SW quadrant than Energy Partner acreage. What am I missing? There still doesn't seem to be a ton of exacting evidence that BENM reduction was based on fuel extraction from what I read.

GSENM...that is a different story given the info in the article. But we always knew, as evinced by the constant rhetoric, that there was a sustained hope to extract coal out of the Kaparowitz.

Do folks have links to emails or docs in this info dump that expose the extraction issue that I am missing in BENM?


----------

