# Thank you Secretary Zinke



## #1DEER 1-I

https://elknetwork.com/rmef-support...95-acres-sabinoso-wilderness-area-new-mexico/

Good to see him come around on this issue and do what he should have been on the side of all along, unlocking the only landlocked wilderness in the United States. Now the deal has not been done yet but Zinke finally gave the green light to move forward through the process from which he was holding up. Now about those sage grouse plans and national monuments........

Also thanks for this:
http://sportsmenslink.org/the-media...ls-to-expand-sportsmens-access-across-the-u.s


----------



## Vanilla

He's already removed multiple national monuments entirely from the review process he was charged by the president to conduct. It just might not the specific monuments you want. 

Interesting that none of his naysayers ever got on here and mentioned that.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Vanilla said:


> Interesting that none of his naysayers ever got on here and mentioned that.


I've been thinking that for the last several days.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> He's already removed multiple national monuments entirely from the review process he was charged by the president to conduct. It just might not the specific monuments you want.
> 
> Interesting that none of his naysayers ever got on here and mentioned that.


Which is exactly why I just thanked him for these moves. I'll pat him on the back when right and criticize him when he's wrong. That's much more objective than you have been. Patting someone on the back when right or wrong just because they are on your side or they aren't "as bad as it could have been" is not being objective it's simply going with the flow because of who it is. Yes he has removed several monuments. Doing that, he also left Craters of the Moon National Monument alone which is over 700,000 acres, and left the Missouri Breaks NM alone which is nearly half a million acres. My problem is not with the review itself, my problem with the review is that the review is not unbiased. The review was ordered for political payback to target Grand Staircase and Bears Ears. Vanilla I bet grand Staircase is recommended for a reduction, care to place a wager on it? There will probably be one or two other monuments that are recommended for reduction so it doesn't look so blatantly obvious this was an order aimed right at two monuments. Don't like the acreage? Then change the antiquities act, but as seen by a couple of the monuments that are already being left alone, 700,000 acres is seen as small enough when political payback doesn't add into the equation. I'm willing to thank him when he's right, but not when he's wrong or playing politics.I absolutely commend Zinke for leaving the monuments he has alone, now let's take an honest look at the rest and not one with a political agenda.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Are you gonna call out the other naysayers or do they get a pass? 

Looking forward to the next whine fest and hysterical proclamation.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Are you gonna call out the other naysayers or do they get a pass?
> 
> Looking forward to the next whine fest and hysterical proclamation.


Absolutely, if you are a hunter and don't appreciate this, or the fact he's left the monuments he has in tact(including a 700,000 acre monument) as is, you also aren't being honest or objective. I suppprt what's good for wildlife and wild places, I don't care who does it. Yes there are people who will criticize this administration and Zinke no matter what he does. He, like anyone, is a mixed bag. Thanks when he's on the side of wildlife and wild places, and criticism when he's not or playing politics. I won't say someone like paddler is objective OO, but you're certainly not yourself either.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> He's already removed multiple national monuments entirely from the review process he was charged by the president to conduct. It just might not the specific monuments you want.
> 
> Interesting that none of his naysayers ever got on here and mentioned that.





OriginalOscar said:


> I've been thinking that for the last several days.


So, now we're supposed to congratulate this administration when they don't do something stupid? I mean, they've done lots of stupid stuff, but I still don't think we should applaud when they don't. I'd rather praise them for doing something positive..... still trying to think of one instance. Anybody???


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's already removed multiple national monuments entirely from the review process he was charged by the president to conduct. It just might not the specific monuments you want.
> 
> Interesting that none of his naysayers ever got on here and mentioned that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OriginalOscar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking that for the last several days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, now we're supposed to congratulate this administration when they don't do something stupid? I mean, they've done lots of stupid stuff, but I still don't think we should applaud when they don't. I'd rather praise them for doing something positive..... still trying to think of one instance. Anybody???
Click to expand...

The start of this thread was about the Sabinoso ranch land being accepted as Wilderness, does that not count?

Not everything needs to weaponized against the administration. Sometimes we can reach across the aisle and shake hands with people we often disagree with in the spirit of success.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I'm willing to thank him when he's right, but not when he's wrong or playing politics.I absolutely commend Zinke for leaving the monuments he has alone, now let's take an honest look at the rest and not one with a political agenda.


What determines if it is "right" or "wrong?"

Some people believe the initial size of the monuments was "playing politics." Some people believe the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears should be reduced in size. You may not agree, but speaking entirely objectively, does your opinion make them wrong?

The definition of "objective" is not "Anyone that agrees with 1-eye." Just for the record.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I'd rather praise them for doing something positive..... still trying to think of one instance. Anybody???


So you disagree with the action to strike a deal to open up access to this wilderness area?

You disagree with him removing multiple national monuments from the review ordered by the president?

I thought those would have been things you viewed favorably?


----------



## gdog

Happy about the Sabinoso ranch outcome, but really this was an easy one for Zinke to go with. This area wasn't in consideration or demand for oil/mineral exploration as I understand it(?) The donation of the private ground to access the land locked public land was the real victory. Good step in the right direction along with the other NM's untouched. Hope the trend continues.....


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> The start of this thread was about the Sabinoso ranch land being accepted as Wilderness, does that not count?
> 
> Not everything needs to weaponized against the administration. Sometimes we can reach across the aisle and shake hands with people we often disagree with in the spirit of success.


Sure. The Rimrock Rose Ranch was purchased by the Wilderness Land Trust with money from the Wyss Foundation. They wanted to donate it to allow access to the Sabinoso Wilderness Area, but with the caveat that it would also be designated as wilderness. Zinke was holding the process up because he "had concerns about adding more wilderness-designated area". The BLM proposed this a year ago, and it broad support from New Mexico's congressional delegation and virtually all sportsman's groups. His decision came down to accepting the land as wilderness or declining the donation. I don't think a victory lap is in order, as refusing the donation was out of the question.

My response was specifically addressing the remarks by OO and V, which noted that Zinke wasn't going to review some of the monuments targeted by Trump. My view is that the entire review process was vindictive and ill-advised, ordered by our deranged president who has done everything in his power to role back environmental protections, the protection of public lands, and to erase his predecessor's legacy simply out of spite. I do not believe congratulations are due Zinke for removing some monuments from review. Rather, the administration should be condemned for ordering any review in the first place.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Which is exactly why I just thanked him for these moves. I'll pat him on the back when right and criticize him when he's wrong. That's much more objective than you have been. Patting someone on the back when right or wrong just because they are on your side or they aren't "as bad as it could have been" is not being objective it's simply going with the flow because of who it is. Yes he has removed several monuments. Doing that, he also left Craters of the Moon National Monument alone which is over 700,000 acres, and left the Missouri Breaks NM alone which is nearly half a million acres. My problem is not with the review itself, my problem with the review is that the review is not unbiased. The review was ordered for political payback to target Grand Staircase and Bears Ears. Vanilla I bet grand Staircase is recommended for a reduction, care to place a wager on it? There will probably be one or two other monuments that are recommended for reduction so it doesn't look so blatantly obvious this was an order aimed right at two monuments. Don't like the acreage? Then change the antiquities act, but as seen by a couple of the monuments that are already being left alone, 700,000 acres is seen as small enough when political payback doesn't add into the equation. I'm willing to thank him when he's right, but not when he's wrong or playing politics.I absolutely commend Zinke for leaving the monuments he has alone, now let's take an honest look at the rest and not one with a political agenda.


Its Always about oil and minerals $$. Its hard to drill through lava and I bet the Missouri Breaks don't have any either.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> Sure. The Rimrock Rose Ranch was purchased by the Wilderness Land Trust with money from the Wyss Foundation. They wanted to donate it to allow access to the Sabinoso Wilderness Area, but with the caveat that it would also be designated as wilderness. Zinke was holding the process up because he "had concerns about adding more wilderness-designated area". The BLM proposed this a year ago, and it broad support from New Mexico's congressional delegation and virtually all sportsman's groups. His decision came down to accepting the land as wilderness or declining the donation. I don't think a victory lap is in order, as refusing the donation was out of the question.
> 
> My response was specifically addressing the remarks by OO and V, which noted that Zinke wasn't going to review some of the monuments targeted by Trump. My view is that the entire review process was vindictive and ill-advised, ordered by our deranged president who has done everything in his power to role back environmental protections, the protection of public lands, and to erase his predecessor's legacy simply out of spite. I do not believe congratulations are due Zinke for removing some monuments from review. Rather, the administration should be condemned for ordering any review in the first place.


My response was to your statement



> I'd rather praise them for doing something positive..... still trying to think of one instance. Anybody???


It seems like you recognize the acceptance of the donation as such. For once, it would be great if every thread didn't devolve into about the national monument issue and all of the ways we disagree. Just for once, it would great if folks with shared interest could find middle ground. I don't think anyone is expecting a "victory lap" for just one success but maybe instead just one thread where a bunch of hunters with different political leanings can enjoy the reality that our country has new access to wilderness and hunting.

Willing to meet there and leave it at that? I know it means ignoring jabs by others but sometimes we have to lead the way. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity to get into disagreements over monuments and TPL down the road.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> What determines if it is "right" or "wrong?"
> 
> Some people believe the initial size of the monuments was "playing politics." Some people believe the Grand Staircase and Bears Ears should be reduced in size. You may not agree, but speaking entirely objectively, does your opinion make them wrong?
> 
> The definition of "objective" is not "Anyone that agrees with 1-eye." Just for the record.


That's true, I should have phrased that a lot differently. I will praise him when he does what is good for wildlife and wild places and criticize him when he doesn't do whats good for wildlife/wild places. There is a right and wrong here, and the antiquities act is open to the presidents pen. You can like it or hate it. Zinke recommended a 700,000 acre monument remain in tact. That tells me that the size and scope of a monument is not really the issue, the issue is with political payback over 2 monuments. Thats my problem with this whole thing. An honest look is fine, but targeting two monuments due to political payback is whats wrong in politics on both sides and its no less gross because its one guy doing it instead of the other guy. I've told you several times, if Bears Ears is shrunk, I have no problem with it. If other monuments needed an open an honest look, okay. The problem here is, we all knew Bears Ears would be recommended to be shrunk or rescinded before it was recommended, and we also know that with Grand Staircase as well. Vanilla, is it really a review or objective, if the decision was already made? I think we know Grand Staircase will have a recommendation to shrink it, the fact we know that before it is announced is why I have such a problem with this. It is completely politically motivated and a for-gone decision. Both sides are about doing what they want and hearing what they want to hear, not what is actually right or wrong.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It is completely politically motivated and a for-gone decision. Both sides are about doing what they want and hearing what they want to hear, not what is actually right or wrong.


If it is both sides, and it is all politically motivated, then why didn't we have 700 threads criticizing the previous administration for the designation?

And, what if one doesn't really have a "side?" One of the few things this administration has done that I have liked is the appointment of Secretary Zinke. One thing that is getting lost is the president ordered this review. This is not something that Zinke mandated. Zinke is simply doing his job. One may not like how he's doing it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

It will be interesting to see the final report on BE and GS, and see what specific portions of it are objectionable to people. I think just saying, "Leave it alone" is being objective either. When you don't even know what he's going to say, but you've already made up your mind what your response is going to be...is that being objective?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> If it is both sides, and it is all politically motivated, then why didn't we have 700 threads criticizing the previous administration for the designation?
> 
> And, what if one doesn't really have a "side?" One of the few things this administration has done that I have liked is the appointment of Secretary Zinke. One thing that is getting lost is the president ordered this review. This is not something that Zinke mandated. Zinke is simply doing his job. One may not like how he's doing it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
> 
> It will be interesting to see the final report on BE and GS, and see what specific portions of it are objectionable to people. I think just saying, "Leave it alone" is being objective either. When you don't even know what he's going to say, but you've already made up your mind what your response is going to be...is that being objective?


Vanilla, Zinke believes, I believe, and even would think you believe there are things in Bears Ears that are worthy on monument status, now the size may not be exactly what everyone is happy with, and I'm more open to discussion on BE than GS. GS was created 20 years ago, it's time to put the matter to bed. Instead an order was made to review monuments up to 21 years back. Hmmm.... if that isn't putting an obvious political target on a couple specific monuments to appease the wishes of Utah politicians, I don't know what is. I already know the recommendation is coming to shrink Grand Staircase, and you can admit it or not, but it is absolutely driven by politics. I wish we could have an honest discussion of both those areas and those monument borders, but neither side wants to do that. Both sides just want to play tug of war and one wants to shrink them to nothing while the other side wants to balloon them and place them completely off limits. If I have to side with one side on that tug of war and start pulling, I'm going to go with whats best for the longevity of the area, the wildlife, and wildness of those places, and monument status will ensure that further than a coal mine or oil rig. I'm not saying either side is 100% right, I'm saying that neither side is truthful or just in their logic. Grand Staircase is a 20 year old monument, it's time to set it aside and leave it be. If they want to limit the Antiquities act from this point forward to like 100,000 acres, thats fine, but saying a 700,000 acre monument is perfectly okay and then attacking a 1.3 million acre monument because of its size is not being fully honest of intent. The argument was that the monuments were too big and the Antiquities act was being abused, you kind of hurt that argument when you say 700,000 acres is just fine. I actually do have some sympathy for Zinke because hes doing the best he can with what hes been dealt. He is caving to political pressure. I just honestly wish we could have Theodore Roosevelt here for a day, and see what he truly would think of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase and the intent of the Antiquities act as it was used on both of them.


----------



## paddler

Looks like our cowboy is now under investigation..... Watch this space.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Oil and gas reserves are not under every grain of sand, pebble, or stone. So that is not why some monuments or wilderness areas have been designated. Timber and mining on the other hand...

BE's has more behind the scenes than meets the eye. I suppose you have to live here to appreciate my statement...


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Looks like our cowboy is now under investigation..... Watch this space.


Wasn't this announced already like 3 weeks ago?


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Wasn't this announced already like 3 weeks ago?


Looks like it. I just found out. Probably news to most here, too.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Question is.......who isn't under investigation? Seems investigation is the new public discourse. Well, I'd better go before I fall under investigation.-------SS


----------



## gdog

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45534960&nid=148&title=zinke-wont-eliminate-any-national-monuments

"
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he's recommending that none of 27 national monuments carved from wilderness and ocean and under review by the Trump administration be eliminated. 
But there would be changes to a "handful," he said. 
Zinke told The Associated Press that unspecified boundary adjustments for some monuments carved out of wilderness and ocean over the past four decades will be included in the recommendations he planned to give President Donald Trump on Thursday. None of the sites would revert to new ownership, he said, while public access for uses such as hunting, fishing or grazing would be maintained or restored."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So I have a question. When this inevitably ends up in court for years if Trump does take action on let's say Bears Ears, what actually happens with the monument status until it is not tied up in court? As of right now Bears Ears is a NM but is it funded? Have they began putting up signs and whatnot? And a legal battle will happen and drag out for a long time so where does it go from there? Grand staircases recommendation for shrinking is coming, but the boundaries won't change so long as it's tied up in court I assume. Personally I think action will likely be taken, this will get tied up in court, and they'll lose this battle in court. There's nothing saying that the power even exists to shrink these monuments. If they truly wanted to get something done with them they should have passed legislation through congress, if it's signed with a pen I think the greatest possibility after years of litigation will be the monuments stand as they currently are.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So I have a question. When this inevitably ends up in court for years if Trump does take action on let's say Bears Ears, what actually happens with the monument status until it is not tied up in court?


Looking specifically at Bears Ears, let's suppose President Trump takes action to reduce the size of the national monument, or change the designation to multiple smaller monuments (what some are saying is most likely to happen), then if a party with standing were to sue the government over that action, they would have to ask the court to impose an injunction to stop the reduction from taking place. These are not automatic. I will readily admit that this is not my area of expertise, how I understand it, the moving party (those suing to prevent the reduction in size in this case) has to show that they are likely to prevail on the merits of the case, and also show a probability of irreparable harm if the injunction does not take place. So basically, those suing have to show that irreparable harm will be done to them if the court does not prevent the reduction while the case is pending. I do not believe this will be an easy task to meet this burden, especially if the president's actions are detailed, clear, and provide appropriate protections for the actual antiquities in the area.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> Grand staircases recommendation for shrinking is coming, but the boundaries won't change so long as it's tied up in court I assume.


Maybe. Depends upon if the injunction is granted. Even if they are likely to prevail on the merits of the case, IE - a president may not reduce the size of a previously designated monument, then what is the irreparable harm? It is not just that there will be harm, but irreparable harm. Again, it might be a tough standard to meet. But that probably depends upon which federal district court judge hears the case.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> If they truly wanted to get something done with them they should have passed legislation through congress, if it's signed with a pen I think the greatest possibility after years of litigation will be the monuments stand as they currently are.


Oh the irony in this statement with regards to national monuments...


----------



## Vanilla

gdog said:


> None of the sites would revert to new ownership, he said, *while public access for uses such as hunting, fishing or grazing would be maintained or restored.*"


My only interest in federal or state public lands is this bolded provision above. Secretary Zinke stated further: 
_*"No president should use the authority under the Antiquities Act to restrict public access, prevent hunting and fishing, burden private land, or eliminate traditional land uses, unless such action is needed to protect the object"*_

I concur with this statement entirely. I agree 100% with that declaration.

Sec Zinke continues: 
_*"The recommendations I sent to the president on national monuments will maintain federal ownership of all federal land and protect the land under federal environmental regulations, and also provide a much-needed change for the local communities who border and rely on these lands for hunting and fishing, economic development, traditional uses, and recreation."*_

Again, I'm trying to find fault with the above statement. Who here disagrees with anything in the above paragraph? If so, which part of it is out of place for you?

Another quote I saw and liked from Sec Zinke:
_*"I've heard this narrative that somehow the land is going to be sold or transferred. That narrative is patently false and shameful. The land was public before and it will be public after."* _

Taken at face value, this is exactly what I want, and exactly what even the opponents of the review of national monuments have asked for.

Assuming all of the above happens, this is a win for all involved. Executive overreach is curbed, while at the same time national antiquities are protected in the process, all the while, allowing for historic use and access. Again, I'm trying to find fault with any of the above?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I don't so much disagree with what Zinke said, but how about you just release the details and recommendations in full rather than just speak at us so we can see what's actually in the recommendations?


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I don't so much disagree with what Zinke said, but how about you just release the details and recommendations in full rather than just speak at us so we can see what's actually in the recommendations?


It was just sent to the White House today. A little patience, and you will be able to review the report in its entirety.

Here is the official report summary. It does not add much over what is being reported by various media outlets. This is likely where much of the media reporting is coming from.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/monument-report-summary.pdf


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Sec Zinke continues:
> _*"The recommendations I sent to the president on national monuments will maintain federal ownership of all federal land and protect the land under federal environmental regulations, and also provide a much-needed change for the local communities who border and rely on these lands for hunting and fishing, economic development, traditional uses, and recreation."*_
> 
> Again, I'm trying to find fault with the above statement. Who here disagrees with anything in the above paragraph? If so, which part of it is out of place for you?


Depends on what one means by economic development. If it means extraction, that's a problem for me. Surprised you didn't catch that, or maybe you did but are trying to gloss over that very important question.

My take is that the monuments should stay as they are, that the president doesn't have the authority to reduce or rescind them. It will go to court if he tries. It will likely be challenged on that point. Not sure that any party would need to show irreparable harm to get an injunction if the question is presidential powers, but I have no training in this area.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Depends on what one means by economic development. If it means extraction, that's a problem for me. Surprised you didn't catch that, or maybe you did but are trying to gloss over that very important question.


I did catch that, and I'm glossing over nothing. As always, the devil is in the details. Economic development is a good thing, but can become a bad thing, of course. Isn't one of the justifications FOR designation the economic boom it brings to the surrounding communities? At least that's what people have been saying is true. Maybe they're lying? Or maybe you didn't catch that, or are just glossing over that very important factor.



paddler said:


> My take is that the monuments should stay as they are, that the president doesn't have the authority to reduce or rescind them.


Except for the precedent that has already been set on this issue, many times. Multiple presidents have done this numerous times. When things go to court, precedent becomes kind of important. I'm surprised you didn't catch that, or maybe you did and you're just trying to gloss over that very important factor.



paddler said:


> Not sure that any party would need to show irreparable harm to get an injunction if the question is presidential powers, but I have no training in this area.


I think you're wrong. But like I said above, whether the law is actually followed or not will largely depend upon which judge hears it first. Once it goes up on appeal, that generally gets fixed. Like the current status of the travel ban, as one other current example.


----------



## gdog




----------



## backcountry

As much as I am for maintaining the size of existing monuments I think its important to counter mistruths. I have been consistently shocked by the persistence of the idea that monuments haven't been reduced before and that there isn't precedence. And this is often coming from folks who I know value conservation history.

Monuments have been shrunk a bunch in the past and the monument that eventually led to Olympic NP was actually shrunk in half. And it was halved to open harvesting of timber. 

Monuments and most unilateral presidential actions are inherently vulnerable that way. There is a reason some are turned into NP instead of left to be amended with the stroke of a single pen.

Folks are putting a lot of stock in legal action for BENM. I don't have that faith.


----------



## Catherder

Just a friendly reminder that Zinkes recommendations are just that, recommendations. Trump could sign off on it "as is", could amend things or toss it in the trash. One thing that Trump has not been in his administration is predictable. It's also possible that he will be so busy holding off the dogs of the Russia probe and impeachment that he never gets around to enacting anything. 

From what is released, things don't sound so bad for any side, but as they say, the devil is in the details and we don't have those yet.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I did catch that, and I'm glossing over nothing. As always, the devil is in the details. Economic development is a good thing, but can become a bad thing, of course. Isn't one of the justifications FOR designation the economic boom it brings to the surrounding communities? At least that's what people have been saying is true. Maybe they're lying? Or maybe you didn't catch that, or are just glossing over that very important factor.
> 
> Except for the precedent that has already been set on this issue, many times. Multiple presidents have done this numerous times. When things go to court, precedent becomes kind of important. I'm surprised you didn't catch that, or maybe you did and you're just trying to gloss over that very important factor.
> 
> I think you're wrong. But like I said above, whether the law is actually followed or not will largely depend upon which judge hears it first. Once it goes up on appeal, that generally gets fixed. Like the current status of the travel ban, as one other current example.


Grand Staircase has helped the nearby communities through increased tourism. Any economic development that occurs through reducing the size of monuments will be due to increased extraction, at the expense of tourism. I predict that reducing the monuments will have significant net negative economic impacts on those communities. Turns out people don't come from around the world to look at oil rigs.

While many monuments have changed status or been reduced in size, those changes were logical enough to not engender opposition. In the case cited above, I believe it was felt that increased lumber production was deemed necessary due to WW II. A worthy cause, most thought. The spiteful actions of the Trump administration are a different kettle of fish, which stinks to high heaven. Resistance will be strong. Catherder, Trump doesn't give a crap about policy or the attention span to read more than a one page memo. With very large type. He'll rubber stamp Zinke's recommendations.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry and Catherder...both of you are spot on. 

Catherder, this thread is about Zinke, not President Trump. I like Zinke and think he is good for our country. The president? Well, that doesn't have anything to do with the outdoors, so I better leave that for another time and place. 

Paddler, resistance can be strong. I even imagine some leftist groups will show up at the court house and will try to intimidate anyone and everyone to get their way, probably even resorting to violence. They might even burn down a Starbucks to show they really mean it! Seems to be the answer to everything these days. The only thing that will matter in the end is if their legal arguments are correct. And, based upon many examples of presidential reductions of presidential designated monuments, I suspect in the end, you'll be left disappointed. (Assuming the action taken is just a reduction in size.) However, I'm not a national monument attorney, so what do I know? 

But we're a long ways from that, so I'll go back to stating that at least based upon the summary of this report, Secretary Zinke did a great thing with this review. I reserve the right to change my mind when I see the full details.


----------



## High Desert Elk

One of many in Bears Ears NM...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I'll wait to see the full report. The summary is a stretched out explanation of what we already knew about the review. I'm awaiting the details, and can't wait to see them. As for the legal side, yes the action has been taken before but it has never been challenged in court. We shall see.


----------



## backcountry

Yeah, the courts are a wild card because of the lack of any cases in the past. 

Will be interesting as conservative judges tend to disfavor extensive executive power. But I would think most of us are at best shooting in the dark regarding case history with this context and caliber. 

I can't blame Zinke from what I have seen so far. I am curious what monuments will expand hunting and fishing access. We have severely damaged our marine fisheries (see the recent emergency orders about Alaskan King Salmon?) so I remain a little concerned about that.

Gutting GSENM size will escalate partisanship in extreme ways that I don't won't to imagine. Ironically, it could just be expanded again with the next president so inclined. Or functionally disabled via budget. 

The shame about BENM is the loss to tribal empowerment. We finally see a Monument designed to allow them stewardship and an active role in management and this happens. 

This all seemed preordained. And I don't just mean the current administration's actions. More and more I feel like the detective in V for Vendetta stuck watching some scripted play run its course. At the end of the day I truly think conservationists need a new mechanism besides the Antiquities Act. Something to better protect land at the federal level without the predictable backlash that can almost be more damaging then leaving the land in standard stewardship. Might be a pipe dream but the last decade or two of designations has led to some serious issues. And at this point protecting more land needs more buy-in, not less.

Sad state of affairs.


----------



## paddler

V, you sure come up with stupid crap. This thread is about Zinke, appointed by Trump and directed by him to review monuments designated by Clinton and Obama. Does anybody think we'd be having this discussion if Trump wasn't in the White House? In today's climate, it's probably not a great idea to suggest violence, even if you're not serious and just trying ridicule others. To be clear, though, conservationists don't behave in the ways you suggest. We don't burn Starbucks, or take over wildlife refuges, or refuse to pay grazing fees and point guns at federal officers, or drive cars into crowds. Don't you ever get tired of posting BS?

There is no case law or language in the Antiquities Act that gives the president the power to rescind or reduce the size of monuments designated by a predecessor. From what I recall, some monuments have been elevated to NP status, one was rescinded because it was so remote nobody utilized it, we already covered the Olympic NM, but never has a change in size or status been contested. This could, and likely will go to the Supreme Court. It will likely take longer than Trump remains in office.


----------



## High Desert Elk

No case law or language in something doesn't mean it can't be done. That is why the SCOTUS exists.

The test will be rescind...


----------



## Vanilla

Paddler, I didn't say conservationists will resort to violence. I said some leftist groups will. I'm not suggesting they do so, I'm predicting it. It's a pretty safe bet, based upon the last 10 months of experience. 

And don't lump yourself into the conservationist group. You won't even show up for a RAC meeting to present your own idea to take away the public's ability to hunt public lands. I doubt you'll show up to anything to "preserve" Bears Ears...


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Paddler, I didn't say conservationists will resort to violence. I said some leftist groups will. I'm not suggesting they do so, I'm predicting it. It's a pretty safe bet, based upon the last 10 months of experience.
> 
> And don't lump yourself into the conservationist group. You won't even show up for a RAC meeting to present your own idea to take away the public's ability to hunt public lands. I doubt you'll show up to anything to "preserve" Bears Ears...


Here's the monument issue in a nutshell. The Antiquities Act empowers the president to set aside those areas he deems worthy of protection *in perpetuity*. Not just until the next inauguration. Allowing a future president to remove those protections violates the very spirit of the Act. Trump's actions in this case, and indeed all his actions, are that of a petulant child. Zinke is just his hatchet man. This will go to court, and I will be contributing to the cause.

Can you give examples of violence incited or perpetrated by conservationists or anyone supporting BENM? If so, could you compare those actions with the actions of Trump and his supporters? I know you love to play devil's advocate. Perhaps you could show some restraint out of respect for reason and truth. Your writings consistently make you look foolish.


----------



## backcountry

Can the two of you keep it about the topic at hand and keep any personal barbs sideband? Its a worthy issue to discuss with differing views and ideas that pertain to hunting that I would hate to see closed. I don't know what history y'all have, if any, but it doesn't seem relevant. 

Vanilla, I also sincerely ask you not to bring partisan rhetoric or stereotypes into this. We are all hunters here and I think we can discuss the ideas shared here without using the hyperbole going on outside this forum. 

Just a thought.


----------



## Vanilla

I have yet to bring anything partisan to the discussion. The only even mention I've made of one side of the other was when Paddler said their would be resistance, and I agreed based upon what we've seen the last 10 months. That is simply observing verifiable, objective facts. No partisan stereotype at all. Are you saying that there are not leftist groups protesting, opposing, and in many instances, committing violence to make their point on their disdain anything the current administration does? Seems pretty apparent this is the case, and will continue even on this issue. I'm not just making this stuff up for political benefit, just an observation of the times we're in. Paddler is right, any action by President Trumpnon this topic should expect stiff opposistion from the left. Is that partisan, or reality? 

As for our history, I disagree it is not relevant. One of us has a proven history of fighting for public access to public resources here in a Utah, and one of us has a proven track record of fighting to restrict access by the public to public resources. If you don't think that is relevant, then I don't know what is relevant to this discussion on public lands and outdoor recreation? 

As for getting the thread closed, that is not my intent. But I promise I will defend myself against Jon's continued veiled and direct attacks at me. Every time. I know a better person would let it go. I guess I'm just not that person. Never have been one to let someone try and be a bully, even if it is just from behind a keyboard. (Because he doesn't pull this crap in person, that's for sure!)


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Edited-deleted-nevermind


----------



## Dunkem

all right guys if you are gonna start with rhe name calling ---take it to the P.M.s or I will lock this up!!!


----------



## LostLouisianian

Can ANYONE show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution (aka law of the land) where it authorizes the federal government to own land in the states? I can CLEARLY show where it doesn't authorize this.


----------



## backcountry

And I think that is the KO. Thanks to those who contributed to the constructive conversation while it lasted.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

LostLouisianian said:


> Can ANYONE show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution (aka law of the land) where it authorizes the federal government to own land in the states? I can CLEARLY show where it doesn't authorize this.


Big difference, it has been tested and resolved in court many times and the ruling and facts are clear on that issue.


----------



## Kwalk3

LostLouisianian said:


> Can ANYONE show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution (aka law of the land) where it authorizes the federal government to own land in the states? I can CLEARLY show where it doesn't authorize this.


This has been settled, but this does provide context to your commentary on the issue. So to be clear, you are in support of the State of Utah controlling the currently Federally managed land?

As to the issue at hand, I'll reserve judgment until I see the actual recommendations and the reasoning for them. I am hopeful that there is nothing in the recommendations that will negatively impact public access for hunting and fishing on lands that are currently designated as monuments.

Increased extraction does have the potential to impact hunting and fishing, but I can't jump to a conclusion that such extraction is inevitable until I see the recommendations and reasoning. I'm skeptical, but ultimately access for hunting and fishing is the crux of the issue here.


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> Can ANYONE show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution (aka law of the land) where it authorizes the federal government to own land in the states? I can CLEARLY show where it doesn't authorize this.


It's not in the Constitution, at least regarding to western US, because the west wasn't US property at the time. A lot of the west was acquired by the federal government during Jefferson's term in the Louisiana Purchase. We took much of the west in 1848 after the Mexican War, it was called the Mexican Cession:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession

We bought Alaska from Russia for I think $20 million. Oregon territory was acquired in an 1846 treaty with Great Britain.

The states didn't exist at the time the territories became US property.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Edited and deleted, I apologize LL. Your comparison does have a point, but the courts will be the ones that still must rule on the subject and we shall see.


----------



## Kwalk3

#1DEER 1-I said:


> LL, is essentially saying that because the Antiquites Act does not say specifically a President doesn't have the authority, that means he does. I don't think he's using the statement so much as something he believes but is comparing it to the current argument that because the continuation doesn't specifically state the government can't own land, they can. Just the Antiquities Act doesn't specifcally say the President can't shrink a monument, he's implying he can. The difference in the arguments is that one has been settled in court many times and the other hasn't even been brought before it.
> 
> If that's what LL, actually believes he's right with the people who aren't worth the time.


That may be the logic he's trying to get out. However, he's using the main talking point from the ALC and other PLT advocates to do so. I'm sure he'll clarify his position.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> And I think that is the KO. Thanks to those who contributed to the constructive conversation while it lasted.


No KO here, we're all still on our feet and in the fight. Come on backcountry, don't be so quick to jump off the ledge! What do you wan to discuss that hasn't been or isn't being discussed? I'm game to continue along any line of discourse people want. (Including continuing to fight back when necessary...hopefully it won't be necessary)

1-E, the fact that this is an issue of first impression does not make LL or his line of reasoning wrong. With the public policy implications, this is actually one that could potentially get through the system fairly quickly, relatively speaking, of course. Until not only the details of the report come out, but President Trump actually takes some sort of action, we're all just guessing.


----------



## backcountry

KO for thread moderation, not a winning side. Could be wrong, happens plenty. Getting into Constitutional analysis definitely just seems way outside the parameters of the forum though.


----------



## Dunkem

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Edited-deleted-nevermind


Thanks-- saved me the trouble.


----------



## Springville Shooter

People who would consider those with different views as "people who aren't worth the time" are absolutely a problem much bigger than any specific issue that we face as a society. What a telling statement and what a sorry element of this otherwise great forum.-----SS


----------



## gdog

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45549072&nid=1417&title=bears-ears-to-be-160000-acres

"SALT LAKE CITY - Bears Ears National Monument could be reduced to 160,000 acres, according to a New York Times report citing unnamed congressional aides familiar with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's monument report given to President Donald Trump on Thursday.

That Bears Ears' boundaries are under consideration for reduction is no surprise given Zinke's announcement in July that the 1.35 million-acre monument in San Juan County should be "right-sized."

There's no other information to indicate the relevance and rationale behind a reduction to 160,000 acres, which is about a 12th of what President Barack Obama set aside last December.

The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which pushed for the designation along with a coalition of environmental groups, blasted the news that the monument might be reduced that much.

"Secretary Zinke's recommendation is an insult to tribes. He has shown complete disregard for sovereign tribes with ancestral connections to the region, as well as to the hundreds of thousands of people who have expressed support for Bears Ears National Monument," stated Carleton Bowekaty, Zuni councilman and Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition co-chairman."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> No KO here, we're all still on our feet and in the fight. Come on backcountry, don't be so quick to jump off the ledge! What do you wan to discuss that hasn't been or isn't being discussed? I'm game to continue along any line of discourse people want. (Including continuing to fight back when necessary...hopefully it won't be necessary)
> 
> 1-E, the fact that this is an issue of first impression does not make LL or his line of reasoning wrong. With the public policy implications, this is actually one that could potentially get through the system fairly quickly, relatively speaking, of course. Until not only the details of the report come out, but President Trump actually takes some sort of action, we're all just guessing.


I'm done responding, this will play out in court if it even happens and that will be the final word. Lamenting back and forth with people on an Internet forum who will not have the final say on this issue is speculation from all sides. I'll wait and read the full report, and wait and watch what happens. Thanks for the positive discussion on some parts Vanilla. Thanks to paddler too. You've both has some good insights to add, but you've also both rode party politics pretty hard and it's probably better just to put the matter to bed and let it play out.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> People who would consider those with different views as "people who aren't worth the time" are absolutely a problem much bigger than any specific issue that we face as a society. What a telling statement and what a sorry element of this otherwise great forum.-----SS


I apologize. You are right, I shouldn't put people in a category of "not worth my time" just because of their viewpoint. I would also like to say I've PMd LL on several occasions, he's a good guy, with a lot of viewpoints I agree with. I do apologize for my choice of words. LL has some good insights and comments as well and I'm glad he's here. I need to turn my meter down a lot too, and I will.


----------



## Kwalk3

Springville Shooter said:


> People who would consider those with different views as "people who aren't worth the time" are absolutely a problem much bigger than any specific issue that we face as a society. What a telling statement and what a sorry element of this otherwise great forum.-----SS


This is true and certainly a poor choice of words on 1-Eyes part.

I think that all opinions should be discussed and considered. I, myself, have waffled back and forth about Zinke partially based on considerations offered up in the numerous discussions we have had regarding his brief tenure as Sec. of the Interior. It's easy to get fully entrenched in political ideologies and yell across no-man's-land at the opposing side.

It's far more difficult to admit that you don't have all the answers and be willing to listen and have discourse with others and try to see things from their viewpoint.

I have opinions, but my opinions are not immovable. Even though I may disagree with LL's assertion about the legality of Federal land ownership, I'm more than willing to listen and attempt to see it through a different lens. I may disagree at times with those on either extreme of this issue. However, I think that honest discourse is both possible and necessary for all sides to better understand the issue and figure out what the best way forward is for us as sportsmen.


----------



## Kwalk3

gdog said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45549072&nid=1417&title=bears-ears-to-be-160000-acres
> 
> "SALT LAKE CITY - Bears Ears National Monument could be reduced to 160,000 acres, according to a New York Times report citing unnamed congressional aides familiar with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's monument report given to President Donald Trump on Thursday.
> 
> That Bears Ears' boundaries are under consideration for reduction is no surprise given Zinke's announcement in July that the 1.35 million-acre monument in San Juan County should be "right-sized."
> 
> There's no other information to indicate the relevance and rationale behind a reduction to 160,000 acres, which is about a 12th of what President Barack Obama set aside last December.
> 
> The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which pushed for the designation along with a coalition of environmental groups, blasted the news that the monument might be reduced that much.
> 
> "Secretary Zinke's recommendation is an insult to tribes. He has shown complete disregard for sovereign tribes with ancestral connections to the region, as well as to the hundreds of thousands of people who have expressed support for Bears Ears National Monument," stated Carleton Bowekaty, Zuni councilman and Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition co-chairman."


Interesting......Will be interesting as well to see if GSENM is reduced to the 200,000 acres that our Utah legislators were asking for.

If Orrin is happy with the recommendations, I'm not so sure that I'm as hopeful about what that means for sportsmen. Will be good to see the actual details with relevant reasoning.


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> It's not in the Constitution, at least regarding to western US, because the west wasn't US property at the time. .


Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Any questions after today's civics 101 lesson boys and girls?


----------



## backcountry

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Springville Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who would consider those with different views as "people who aren't worth the time" are absolutely a problem much bigger than any specific issue that we face as a society. What a telling statement and what a sorry element of this otherwise great forum.-----SS
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize. You are right, I shouldn't put people in a category of "not worth my time" just because of their viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Apologizing on the internet is a vulnerable choice, #1Deer, that is easier said then done. I think its fair to guess most of us have crossed a line a time or two and could display that humility. Well done.

I spent much of my degree work also studying conservation and its history. Learned alot but always amazed at how much more there is to know. Humbling.


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Any questions after today's civics 101 lesson boys and girls?


Nope, LL. Reserved Powers is irrelevant to the topic of land ownership, which falls under Article Four, Section 3.2., the Property Clause. Land acquired and owned by the federal government is not ceded to the states when statehood is granted, but remains under the jurisdiction of Congress.


----------



## OriginalOscar

gdog said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45549072&nid=1417&title=bears-ears-to-be-160000-acres
> 
> "SALT LAKE CITY - Bears Ears National Monument could be reduced to 160,000 acres, according to a New York Times report citing unnamed congressional aides familiar with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's monument report given to President Donald Trump on Thursday.
> 
> That Bears Ears' boundaries are under consideration for reduction is no surprise given Zinke's announcement in July that the 1.35 million-acre monument in San Juan County should be "right-sized."
> 
> There's no other information to indicate the relevance and rationale behind a reduction to 160,000 acres, which is about a 12th of what President Barack Obama set aside last December. There never was relevance and rational for the 1.2M acres designated. The oft state 100,000 native sites has no merit on how that number or where they are located.
> 
> The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which pushed for the designation along with a coalition of environmental groups, blasted the news that the monument might be reduced that much.
> 
> "Secretary Zinke's recommendation is an insult to tribes. He has shown complete disregard for sovereign tribes with ancestral connections to the region, as well as to the hundreds of thousands of people who have expressed support for Bears Ears National Monument," stated Carleton Bowekaty, Zuni councilman and Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition co-chairman." We live in a republic and when every elected official from Utah opposed the process and scope of the monument it's an insult to due process of government. Can you imagine the stupid **** if every decision was by popularity?


Antiquities Act has history of abuse by progressive provincial presidents; Carter, Clinton, Obama. Simply require congressional approval for any monument designation over 5,000 acres. WY and AK have this clause because of Grand Teton back in the day and Alaska's 10M acres by Carter.


----------



## backcountry

For the most part liberal presidents have designated larger swaths of land under the Act. That said, you forgot a Whopper by George W Bush when he created a 300,000 square mile monument in the Pacific. Which if I did the math right would be roughly equivalent to 192 million acres on land.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Seem's like BE's NM is more about a one-sided use rather than preserving a prinstine area for everyone from "drill baby, drill". 

Wonder when portions if it will be off limits completely...

Anyway, back to the original start of the thread - I will be looking at future hunt opportunities in NM unit 42.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Seem's like BE's NM is more about a one-sided use rather than preserving a prinstine area for everyone from "drill baby, drill".
> 
> Wonder when portions if it will be off limits completely...
> 
> Anyway, back to the original start of the thread - I will be looking at future hunt opportunities in NM unit 42.


Not sure what you mean by this, it makes no sense to me.

This is what I've been saying all along. This review is pure spite on Trump's part, trying to build himself up by tearing Obama down. That will not work, for so many reasons. He only succeeds in making himself look smaller.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2017/08/26/tribune-editorial-monumental-error/

This will be a mess for a long time, all due to Trump's jealousy, narcissism and petulance. That is not a partisan statement, just fact. This would never have happened under a Clinton presidency, and sportsmen would be better off.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Not sure what you mean by this, it makes no sense to me.


Please see the red text two or three posts above from the quoted text in the KSL article. Is the monument about conservation and its sporting recreational use or something else?

If you need, I can be very politically incorrect and spell it out in plain black and white text...


----------



## Bax*

I came back in town to see a couple messages asking to shut this thread down. 

I am going to refrain from doing so. But I think that some points are getting a little too personal and are veering away from the OP's direction. 

Please stay on track fellas. 

Thanks!


----------



## Dunkem

Bax* said:


> I came back in town to see a couple messages asking to shut this thread down.
> 
> I am going to refrain from doing so. But I think that some points are getting a little too personal and are veering away from the OP's direction.
> 
> Please stay on track fellas.
> 
> Thanks!


Ya I've been away from my computer for 8 hours and this whole thing is going the direction it was before-- some have taken heed to my P.M. some have not, again read the darn rules--i.e. politics-belittling--trash talk--etc. Last warning from me.

EDIT: Thanks to you guys that have toned it down, I appreciate it.


----------



## paddler

HCE, still not sure what you mean. To briefly review this topic, Obama used the power invested in the Presidency to designate BENM after years of congressional wrangling failed to produce results. He waited until nearly the last minute in order to allow the political process to play out, and acted in total accordance with the law. The designation doesn't lock up land or reduce access. Hunting and fishing will still be under the jurisdiction of the DWR. The major change is to prohibit further development, though leases existing at the time of the designation would be honored. So, I remain confused about your post.

Designating National Monuments is a very political issue, partisanship is inevitable. GS, ANWAR, BE are examples mentioned in this thread alone. The only thing more partisan than designating a monument is attempting to rescind or reduce a monument out of spite, or for political reasons. This is, as I have pointed out, an entirely unique action. No president has ever attempted to do this before.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/20/no-...onuments-status-trump-might-be-the-first.html

We already talked about the Olympic NM being reduced by half by Wilson because of WW I (not WW II, as I mistakenly posted previously). Taft reduced a monument he designated himself three years earlier because of new mapping, ie, better information. No NM has been messed with in any significant way since Kennedy. And, the Supreme Court has ruled previously that there is no size limitation on monuments., which negates the argument some expound saying that BENM is larger than the Antiquities Act allows.:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...res-in-utahcan-trump-un-conserve-them/530265/

I do not see a way to talk about Zinke in this context without some degree of partisanship. I stated what I think to be true, that Zinke either would not have been Secretary of the Interior, or if he was, would not have been instructed to "review" the monuments if Trump wasn't in the White House. I hope this is a more palatable way of putting it, but it is irrefutably factual. We would not be having this conversation if Trump had not prevailed in the Electoral College. If that is too partisan, and it's not clear that simply stating facts could be so construed, I'll retire from the field. I wonder how long this will take to wind through the courts.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> HCE, still not sure what you mean. To briefly review this topic, Obama used the power invested in the Presidency to designate BENM after years of congressional wrangling failed to produce results. He waited until nearly the last minute in order to allow the political process to play out, and acted in total accordance with the law. The designation doesn't lock up land or reduce access. Hunting and fishing will still be under the jurisdiction of the DWR. The major change is to prohibit further development, though leases existing at the time of the designation would be honored. So, I remain confused about your post.
> 
> Designating National Monuments is a very political issue, partisanship is inevitable. GS, ANWAR, BE are examples mentioned in this thread alone. The only thing more partisan than designating a monument is attempting to rescind or reduce a monument out of spite, or for political reasons. This is, as I have pointed out, an entirely unique action. No president has ever attempted to do this before.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/20/no-...onuments-status-trump-might-be-the-first.html
> 
> We already talked about the Olympic NM being reduced by half by Wilson because of WW I (not WW II, as I mistakenly posted previously). Taft reduced a monument he designated himself three years earlier because of new mapping, ie, better information. No NM has been messed with in any significant way since Kennedy. And, the Supreme Court has ruled previously that there is no size limitation on monuments., which negates the argument some expound saying that BENM is larger than the Antiquities Act allows.:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/science...res-in-utahcan-trump-un-conserve-them/530265/
> 
> I do not see a way to talk about Zinke in this context without some degree of partisanship. I stated what I think to be true, that Zinke either would not have been Secretary of the Interior, or if he was, would not have been instructed to "review" the monuments if Trump wasn't in the White House. I hope this is a more palatable way of putting it, but it is irrefutably factual. We would not be having this conversation if Trump had not prevailed in the Electoral College. If that is too partisan, and it's not clear that simply stating facts could be so construed, I'll retire from the field. I wonder how long this will take to wind through the courts.


Yes, inserting commentary on Trump's electoral college win is too partisan, overly political and not inherently related to the topic at hand. Please stop and show greater restraint. You can even edit it out if you don't want it to pollute the factual points above it since this forum does not have a time limit on that feature.

Still waiting to see what full details emerge from Zinke's recommendations. My deer hunt unit includes much of the GSENM and the only thing that could happen is negative as nothing in a decrease in size is going to help a hunter in 25C. 91% of the summer range and 79% of the winter range is accessible public land right now. There is no way that number is going to increase with a reduction of the GSENM.

Same goes for trout waters as industry, grazing and lumber extraction don't provide any benefit to that hobby. Well, I guess if I really wanted to find some it would be that the roads are better while lumber is being removed, as I have seen around Purple and Blue Lakes. But that is squeezing every last drop of juice out of the fruit to make lemonade.

I don't see any benefit to any changes to GSENM as a hunter and fisherman.


----------



## Huge29

I think the main points are that:
1-Area pretty clearly meets the intent of the Antiquities Act. NOt sure this is debatable, certainly one can argue the act, but that is very old news.
2-The much more debatable point is simply the size. I will state it again....Bear's Ears is over double the size of all 5 of our State's National Parks combined in area. If those national parks are so great, why not take millions of acres for those too? NOt only is this ridiculously oversized, but they arent even contiguous, which seems really odd to me. I dont see any indication of any kind that the act was ever meant for such a wide swath of land and this is clearly abuse of the act. 
3-For the argument that the Native Americans want this...is fine, but what an unfortunate viewpoint, is there any group of people in the history of our country who should have less trust in the federal government? They already didnt deliver on their joint management promise. They just building a new hospital in whitehorse with funds that were won over a decades long suit with the federal govt that they won...
4-I know several true locals who have actually lived there for more decades, not your tree hugger from Chicago, LA, Austin, NY, Berkeley, etc who just moved there in the last few years (the only ones who claim to be local and support it)...none of them like any of this. I speak to two of them regularly and they not only don't like it they find it ironic that by protecting this area means to increase the traffic exponentially...


----------



## paddler

BC, you're confusing "commentary", where one interprets events, with "root cause analysis", where one traces the causes of events. Here's a link to commentary. Don't open it if you don't want to read it:

http://idahostatejournal.com/outdoo...cle_92e7fc60-d0b3-57e8-9813-602d9cecbdd1.html


----------



## High Desert Elk

Paddler - it would be more prudent for me to explain my post to you in black and white outside the public spectrum as it can become too controversial for this forum.

PM me if you want to continue...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Paddler - it would be more prudent for me to explain my post to you in black and white outside the public spectrum as it can become too controversial for this forum.
> 
> PM me if you want to continue...


I think your views would be of interest to many here. I just don't understand what you mean by "one sided use". Not a big deal, really. If you can't explain it without violating forums rules, we can ignore it.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

I think all of us just want to be able to hunt in those NMs. I'm just worried about the motives of the politicians of Utah. I don't want the NMs reduced and then later on" the land around them", the state buys or trades some crap land for it and then someone locks it all up as private for some billionaire can get richer. :grouphug:


----------



## High Desert Elk

State (or federal) politicians are not the only ones to be leary of...


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> State (or federal) politicians are not the only ones to be leary of...


In regards to federal land those are the only individuals that can affect hunting and fishing, assuming we are talking about our state representatives to the federal government. Tribal stakeholders in the national monument can't limit either of those activities as they can only operate within the exisitng framework of laws. Private industry can only operate off of federal leases which does affect hunting via proxy given laws about shooting near structures and roads.

Nothing within the BENM's resource management structure can diminish hunting from the laws I am aware of. Curious what you mean.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> In regards to federal land those are the only individuals that can affect hunting and fishing, assuming we are talking about our state representatives to the federal government. Tribal stakeholders in the national monument can't limit either of those activities as they can only operate within the exisitng framework of laws. *Private industry can only operate off of federal leases which does affect hunting via proxy given laws about shooting near structures and roads.
> 
> Nothing within the BENM's resource management structure can diminish hunting from the laws I am aware of. * Curious what you mean.


That's correct from my reading. Hunting and fishing will remain the under the jurisdiction of the DWR. Any increased development, ie, extraction, will negatively impact hunting not only because of laws restricting shooting, but also through habitat degradation and disturbance to wildlife.


----------



## High Desert Elk

My viewpoint comes from living amongst some of these "interested" parties for decades, along with the politics that go along with it. All I can say is hide and watch.

For some spare time reading, check out the history of the Valles Caldera NP. Granted, not the same thing, but you'll get the idea...


----------



## backcountry

No one doubts that you have this viewpoint and have personal experience that formed it. And, it hard to know what you are saying considering how vague you remain. 

I clearly have values and points of view but I think I am willing to learn and have remained relatively open-minded in these conversations. Hard to do that without concrete information though.

Per Valles ... that is a fundamentally different scenario. It was a unique experiment in American conservation. There isn't really a parallel for BENM. or for that matter many other places. The Trust/Preserve were formed through purchase of private property and then a legislative bill. It was meant to be financial solvent on its own. BENM has been existing federal land for ages. It is controlled through a different federal framework that for more than a decade has required interagency cooperation. The BLM and USFS framework of national monuments inherently fosters/requires multi-use management and usage. Its fair to consider the old "holding action" of the "monuments-to-parks process" over.

Edit/PS....I fully recognize that there are diverse forces at play in these moments. Many organizations work behind the scenes to pass legislation or encourage unilateral action. Some have goals that do not align with hunting or fishing.

PSS....forgot about your previous innuendos. Only interested if you can keep it relevant to hunting and not inflammatory.


----------



## High Desert Elk

backcountry said:


> No one doubts that you have this viewpoint and have personal experience that formed it. And, it hard to know what you are saying considering how vague you remain.
> 
> PSS....forgot about your previous innuendos. Only interested if you can keep it relevant to hunting and not inflammatory.


I have to remain vague as forum rules dictate that I must, so fair enough.

Now go back and re-read what I wrote about the VC being different from this and if you take the time you'll see that a portion of its history will shed some light on some of my vagueness and how it could affect hunting in the future.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you have this viewpoint and have personal experience that formed it. And, it hard to know what you are saying considering how vague you remain.
> 
> PSS....forgot about your previous innuendos. Only interested if you can keep it relevant to hunting and not inflammatory.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to remain vague as forum rules dictate that I must, so fair enough.
> 
> Now go back and re-read what I wrote about the VC being different from this and if you take the time you'll see that a portion of its history will shed some light on some of my vagueness and how it could affect hunting in the future.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go chasing without more information. Too vague; I might as well devout time to Fenn's treasure considering he shared more clues. If it can't be shared in public, then PM me. Request is sincere if you can keep it specific and non-inflammatory (ie no name calling, etc). I am a curious person as long as information is shared respectfully.


----------



## High Desert Elk

PM sent, no name calling either. Just too sensitive a topic as it does involve some politics...


----------



## paddler

Thanks again, Mr Secretary. You rock.:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/business...uietly-streamlines-its-environmental-reviews/

Anybody still optimistic?


----------



## JerryH

paddler said:


> Thanks again, Mr Secretary. You rock.:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/business...uietly-streamlines-its-environmental-reviews/
> 
> Anybody still optimistic?


Are you using a nice old fashioned wooden spoon. Or a newer up to date stainless spoon? Lol


----------



## paddler

JerryH said:


> Are you using a nice old fashioned wooden spoon. Or a newer up to date stainless spoon? Lol


Always stir with a wooden spoon.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> Thanks again, Mr Secretary. You rock.:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/business...uietly-streamlines-its-environmental-reviews/
> 
> Anybody still optimistic?


How do we judge this as a problem yet? No way to know. Having done EIS before I know outright that the chore can be bureaucratically overwhelming and rather unnecessary in scale. Many biologist and conservation oriented federal employees I have known agree. Working on such lengthy legal documents often interferes with collecting data and field work. Biggest hurdle will be increasing man hours to meet the deadline on already skimpy budgets. They can get by the page limit (likely) by having addendums elsewhere or starting to compile broader data sets and knowledge bases that aren't officially part of the final reports. Its not a hard concept and easy to reference in citations, etc. But then again I am trained in science writing and understand the benefit of precise and concise writing (I know, ironic).

I see a bunch of hyperbolic statements from environmental groups which are pretty standard when policy from individuals they oppose make the news circuit. Such as

"There is no good reason to shortcut or sidestep opportunities for the American public to have a say about what happens on their lands," said Nada Culver, director of agency policy for The Wilderness Society."

Nothing in the written policy I saw on Scribd seems to provide justification for that claim. Where are the public comments being eliminated? I often agree with the Wilderness Society but find this statement knee jerk.

But I also think you have to remain skeptical about the possibility of letting the fox into the hen house. All of the past affiliations don't predict intent or outcome but it is definitely a viable concern. It could be about efficiency and/or industry or some other goal.

Given this is about infrastructure and the backlog the NPS has this could be a good thing. Hard to know until we see its impact and if funding matches those needs.

Will be interesting to see if any non-partisan third party steps in to analyze the legal language in the order and what its full implications are.

Not sure how this currently affects hunting or fishing.


----------



## paddler

*So, Was Thanking Zinke Premature?*

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...ears-ears-grand-staircase-national-monuments/

I never understood why anybody was ever optimistic about this guy or why they were thankful for his efforts on behalf of the extraction industries and our local, self-serving and shortsighted politicians.


----------



## DallanC

Because there should be a balance in most things. I for one and very happy with his job performance so far.


-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I wouldn't say it was premature. I can thank him when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong. I'm not at all surprised to see the 2 targeted monuments be recommended for shrinking. I think shrinking Bears Ears is reasonable. I think attempting to shrink Grand Staircase after leases have been bought out and land has been exchanged to accommodate the monument and it has been 20 years, is ridiculous.


----------



## BPturkeys

I just don't think Zenke or anyone else can do a realistic study and come up with a better plan and better conclusions about the existing monuments in what, 8 weeks, than the conclusions arrived by the previous people that spent years in some cases(Bear's Ears area) coming to conclusions and making recommendations. I think, and his recommendation seem to verify, Zenke simply sat down with the extraction industry guys and ask, "boys, what do you need?, I am here to please?". There is no way an honest study could have been made in such a short time...this plan has been draw up and finalized by someone long before Zenke hit the scene...gee, I wonder who would have a plan all ready to go on such short notice???


----------



## backcountry

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I wouldn't say it was premature. I can thank him when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong. I'm not at all surprised to see the 2 targeted monuments be recommended for shrinking. I think shrinking Bears Ears is reasonable. I think attempting to shrink Grand Staircase after leases have been bought out and land has been exchanged to accommodate the monument and it has been 20 years, is ridiculous.


I agree with this assessment. I was just in various parts of BENM and it's size is difficult to fathom. In much of it there is already significant management policy to protect resources and the biggest hurdle in that goal is funding enough backcountry personnel. A monument doesn't inherently change that as we have seen in the Escalante, which is perennially understaffed and largely relies on assumed visitor cooperation.

Its a shame that Obama didn't create a monument with exact boundaries of the Utah state effort. We would be in an entirely different situation. It would have created a different political environment and would likely have not been downsized. In fact, it would be very hard for the state to go after it and could have been expanded in the future as often happens (especially if the regional economy benefits).

I also agree about GSENM. Its created a local economy that is reliant on existing policy. But the animosity from opposition never got weaker.

I think the era of big monuments under Presidential use of the Antiquities Act needs to be over. The effectiveness of the tool has proven counter-productive if we value sustainable, long term conservation. We need buy-in from locals for that and the opposite has happened. We need a new tool.


----------



## middlefork

backcountry said:


> Its a shame that Obama didn't create a monument with exact boundaries of the Utah state effort. We would be in an entirely different situation. It would have created a different political environment and would likely have not been downsized. In fact, it would be very hard for the state to go after it and could have been expanded in the future as often happens (especially if the regional economy benefits).


You mean the proposal that our delegation spent better than 3 years trying to get off the ground with zero progress? I'm sure that will get fast tracked now for sure.


----------



## backcountry

Hence why I think it would have been strategically smart for Obama to have just passed the exact boundaries they wanted. What political capital would Utah's pols have to fight the exact monument they proposed? 

Anybody paying attention since GSENM knew that we were fast approaching an ideological standoff about monuments. There should be no shock that BENM would be the final straw for the growing contingency out west against the Huge monuments that have been passed in the last few decades. Anybody with sustainable conservation as a goal should have been concerned about it becoming collateral damage in the political fight. Passing a major national monument weeks before walking out the door may have worked in the past but was clearly going to be fought in some manner and we have seen the fruit of twenty+ years of political learning now come to fruition. 

I have no sympathy or love for most of Utah's legislature but I also don't have love for the stubborn persistence of moving ahead with measures at any cost when that cost ends up being the very thing we are trying to protect. The current debacle happened like a freight train crash played in slow motion over 21 years of my life. Right now I don't trust Utah, republicans, democrats or most long established conservation organizations to pass any sustainable land bills. One of the most archaeological dense and sensitive regions of southern Utah may never receive the thoughtful protections it needs because of the gridlock and shortsightedness of political strategist who won't sacrifice a pawn to save the king and queen. 

We need new thinkers, organizations and strategist to get us out of this mess if we hope to come to terms with maintaining the protections we need to recreate, hunt and fish. For far too long we have been encouraged to point fingers at the opposition when in reality the entire structure and interplay of how this has happened is implicated. And if we don't learn fast then what we are seeing now is only the beginning. And the things we all love and share (even if slightly different in approach) on this forum are at risk.


----------



## middlefork

Protection was already in place for most of the archaeological sites before the PLI or monument were proposed.

What was lacking is enforcement. Why? No funding.

What will change by either leaving the designation as is, or reverting to the PLI boundaries? Nothing is funded and not likely to be in either case.

And now the area gets pummelled by more and more people just to see what it is all about. No worries about limiting access in the future. No maintenance on the existing roads and trails is a self fulfilling prophesy.


----------



## backcountry

I agree with alot of that. I do think PLI boundary designation by Obama may have opened up greater cooperation in Congressional funding. Thats just a guess but we know it couldn't get much worse than the current outcome.

One caveat...the biggest threat to BENM has been and remains well-funded antiquities looting for the black market. Sophisticated nighttime looting via state of the art, unmarked helicopters has been known for a while. Popularity will increase visitation and impact now (also one of my complaints) but it will take a while for that to equal or surpass the above. Though, its fair to guess much of that ecotourism will struggle with hunting in the area which needs to be considered.

Though its my understanding the recommended reduction will be far smaller than state boundaries.


----------



## middlefork

backcountry said:


> One caveat...the biggest threat to BENM has been and remains well-funded antiquities looting for the black market. Sophisticated nighttime looting via state of the art, unmarked helicopters has been known for a while.


Sorry this had me laughing a little.

So where do these unmarked helicopters operate out of? The same place as the ones that drop flour sacks on the elk herds to chase them onto private property?

Sorry I can't imagine a helicopter being much good at looting many of the ruins.

Traditionally the locations of most ruins were fiercely protected by those that wished to preserve them. Even with the internet it remains mostly that way.

I'm not saying that looting has not taken place or that it is not taking place to this day. But unmarked helicopters?

Oh I remember there is a family down that way that is buying up a lot of property. They seem to be funded by flying helicopters.


----------



## backcountry

There are thousands of ruins and panels in the Cedar Mesa area alone; there is no way they can be protected with current resources. That doesn't include all of the places in BENM like Beef Basin, Dark Canyon, etc. Secrecy alone has never done a good job at protection as the areas popularity (pre-monument) exposes. I personally found upwards of 200 locations with just the aid of maps in my limited time exploring there. Imagine what someone motivated by earning a ton of money could do?

I will try and find the BLM bulletin that specifically addressed the looting facilitated with helicopters. It was a notice from 2007 but the archived sites I can access only mention it by name without the hyperlink that was originally there. The understanding is that people hike in during the day to remote locations, loot the sites, then hike it out at night to the rimlands to waiting helicopters. The antiquities are likely sold to overseas collectors in place like Germany where there is a vibrant interest in southwest cultural artifacts. Stolen artifacts have always been and remain a well-funded industry, hence the laws.

If the BLM knew the operational locations I doubt they would have been seeking public help through bulletins. 

I appreciate snark as much as anyone but this is not a fanciful creation of my imagination.


----------



## Kwalk3

If it's not helicopters, it's for sure badgers. Badgers are notorious for looting prized cultural artifacts. Mike Noel is truly a gem. _Heavy sarcasm intended for those who are wondering._

"There is no immediate threat. It's a scam," said Noel, a Kanab Republican who's also said environmental groups are manipulating tribal members into supporting a monument. "There is no fresh digging. All we can see today are badger holes. We have to get a handle on these badgers because those little suckers are going down and digging up artifacts and sticking them in their holes."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4002043&itype=CMSID


----------



## paddler

The monuments should stay just the way they are. Zinke is an extraction industry puppet. Trump just wants to eliminate Obama's legacy out of spite. We'll see how it plays out in court. If congress doesn't act, it's going to take a while to work through it. If they are reduced, the next Democratic president should restore them to the current boundaries.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> If they are reduced, the next Democratic president should restore them to the current boundaries.


Let's see.
- Economy doing well.
- Killing the **** out of ISIS and the Crazy Korean rolled back.
- Illegals down
- Progressives going nuts and showing true colors with protests.
- Local politics continue to move right.

Yeah you won't EVER get another president. The US will be like Utah. 
25% Hard Right Republicans 50% Moderates Republican or Independent, 25% Whiny Left (aka Democrats, Socialists, Commies, Special Identity People, Trolls)

Our future is bright! Oh yeah on subject. From my HuntTalk post. Good for Zinke.


> #1 - The Antiquities Act - Specifically states "smallest area" not 1.2M acres of Southeast Utah for Bears Ears based on no credible inventory -https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm
> Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected:
> #2 - Zinke reviewed 27 monuments established since 1996, 10 are recommended for modification. 37% modified, 63% no change. Doesn't demonstrate unilateral rollback. Monuments designated by Clinton, GW Bush and Obama all identified for modification.
> 
> #3 - Nobody pointed out he is recommending three new monuments - Camp Nelson in KY where black soldiers trained during Civil War, home of Medgar Evers in Jackson MS, and Two Medicine Butte in MT considered sacred by the Blackfeet - http://www.sltrib.com/news/environme...nal-monuments/
> Yet Zinke also suggests the administration explore the possibility of establishing three new national monuments that would recognize either African-American or Native American history. These include Kentucky's Camp Nelson, an 1863 Union Army outpost where African-American regiments trained; the home of murdered civil rights hero Medgar Evers in Jackson, Mississippi; and the 130,000-acre Badger-Two Medicine area in Zinke's home state of Montana, which is consider sacred by the Blackfeet Nation.
> 
> #4 - Monument management plans don't guarantee established and proven wildlife and land management practice to propagate wildlife and improve habitat will be allowed. B&C, Wild Sheep, Wild Turkey were recently roasted because they called into question what impact designating vast areas as National Monuments could have on sportsmen and our recreational opportunities. Large swaths of what was designated in Bears Ears is marginal habitat which land managers have been working to improve over the decades. Burns, chaining, water development, reseeding have all been used to improve habitat.
> 
> Fact is the Antiquities Act has been abused for decades to designate vast areas as National Monuments usually at the end of the outgoing presidents term. Monuments to self and political rewards. I support keeping Antiquities Act if any recommended monuments over 5,000 acres require congressional review. Just like AK received after Carters designated 10M acres on his way out and WY received after FDR established Teton. All states deserve the same reasonable scope and legislative process.
> 
> Good for Zinke to make a thoughtful review and reasonable recommendation.
> 
> Troy Rushton


----------



## DallanC

I think half the crazy sh** trump says is just a red herring to distract liberals from what he is really doing. And they fall for it _ever_single_time. 


-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Please reconsider taking this thread down the partisan rabbit hole. The last two comments are loaded with politics that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing or land management that affects those sports.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Please reconsider taking this thread down the partisan rabbit hole. The last two comments are loaded with politics that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing or land management that affects those sports.


Agreed. Let's stick to whether or not Zinke's actions will benefit Utah's sportsmen. I think it's clear that any change in our national monuments cannot possibly help us. The impact will be net negative, the only question is how much. I have a difficult time understanding the apologists and appeasers on this thread who say let's wait and see, give him the benefit of the doubt, let's be optimistic, let's thank him for not recommending a complete rescindment, etc. The review ordered by Trump and carried out by Zinke cannot have a positive impact on us.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> Agreed. Let's stick to whether or not Zinke's actions will benefit Utah's sportsmen. I think it's clear that any change in our national monuments cannot possibly help us.


No its not clear. Unless you post legitimate reasons we can discuss why you think its "clear", its just speculation on your part.



> The impact will be net negative, the only question is how much.


Again speculation without facts. We dont even know what changes will be implemented, so how can you be certain its going to be a net negative?



> I have a difficult time understanding the apologists and appeasers on this thread who say let's wait and see, give him the benefit of the doubt, let's be optimistic, let's thank him for not recommending a complete rescindment, etc.


People on the "other side" of this argument feel the same way about you.



> The review ordered by Trump and carried out by Zinke cannot have a positive impact on us.


Again speculation. Perhaps you should replace "us" with "me". I don't feel any negative impact with the current proposals.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

My dedicated hunter tag for the next 3 years is on the Boulder/Kaparowitz unit. If they radically alter the GSENM boundaries and policies I could see some loss of critical summer and year round habitat to mule deer due to potential timber projects and extraction. Hard to know at this point. The alteration of boundaries won't likely reduce the public land access on that unit though.

I do think increased visitation to BENM is a net loss to hunters. Much of that region will see increased pressure during the primary hunting months from hikers. I also think the demographics of the visitors attracted to such designations will indirectly harm hunters, ie not hunter friendly or even outright antagonistic. 

I backcountry hunted in the region of GSENM the last few years and have experienced the antagonistic attitudes of tourist first hand. I share many of their values (foot travel, LNT, etc) but happen to value hunting and its conservation benefits. Even when I have reported illegal ATV travel and trails folks have given more side eye to the fact that I am a hunter than thanks for monitoring our public lands. It can get pretty tense. I have some trepidation about locations of my hunt because of how backpackers often judge hunters. It won't stop me but it does give me some pause.

Interacting with and educating those groups is possible but I think we are bound to experience some pushback in the interim.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> My dedicated hunter tag for the next 3 years is on the Boulder/Kaparowitz unit. If they radically alter the GSENM boundaries and policies I could see some loss of critical summer and year round habitat to mule deer due to potential timber projects and extraction. Hard to know at this point. The alteration of boundaries won't likely reduce the public land access on that unit though.
> 
> I do think increased visitation to BENM is a net loss to hunters. Much of that region will see increased pressure during the primary hunting months from hikers. I also think the demographics of the visitors attracted to such designations will indirectly harm hunters, ie not hunter friendly or even outright antagonistic.
> 
> I backcountry hunted in the region of GSENM the last few years and have experienced the antagonistic attitudes of tourist first hand. I share many of their values (foot travel, LNT, etc) but happen to value hunting and its conservation benefits. Even when I have reported illegal ATV travel and trails folks have given more side eye to the fact that I am a hunter than thanks for monitoring our public lands. It can get pretty tense. I have some trepidation about locations of my hunt because of how backpackers often judge hunters. It won't stop me but it does give me some pause.
> 
> Interacting with and educating those groups is possible but I think we are bound to experience some pushback in the interim.


I hunt the Wasatch right on the face, and have never had a negative interaction with hikers. Some have passed by with their eyes averted, but many have expressed curiosity and even interest. The question is whether you'd like to interact with happy hikers or deal with disturbance inherent with the extraction industries. If protected lands become more popular, that just means many Americans from all walks of life with highly varied interests value pristine landscapes. Our interests are perfectly aligned.

Dallan, your post puts you smack dab in the middle of the apologist/appeaser camp. It's not up to me to disprove a negative. If you support rolling back the protections afforded by monument designation, you must show that increasing grazing, timber cutting and extraction in those areas somehow improves things for sportsmen. I reject that premise on its face, and look forward to your contorted logic supporting it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> My dedicated hunter tag for the next 3 years is on the Boulder/Kaparowitz unit. If they radically alter the GSENM boundaries and policies I could see some loss of critical summer and year round habitat to mule deer due to potential timber projects and extraction. Hard to know at this point. The alteration of boundaries won't likely reduce the public land access on that unit though.
> 
> I do think increased visitation to BENM is a net loss to hunters. Much of that region will see increased pressure during the primary hunting months from hikers. I also think the demographics of the visitors attracted to such designations will indirectly harm hunters, ie not hunter friendly or even outright antagonistic.
> 
> I backcountry hunted in the region of GSENM the last few years and have experienced the antagonistic attitudes of tourist first hand. I share many of their values (foot travel, LNT, etc) but happen to value hunting and its conservation benefits. Even when I have reported illegal ATV travel and trails folks have given more side eye to the fact that I am a hunter than thanks for monitoring our public lands. It can get pretty tense. I have some trepidation about locations of my hunt because of how backpackers often judge hunters. It won't stop me but it does give me some pause.
> 
> Interacting with and educating those groups is possible but I think we are bound to experience some pushback in the interim.


I don't disagree with what you're saying, but if the monuments are shrunk we will be dealing with both. You will still have a Grand Staircase and Bears Ears National Monument that people will come to see, and likely have new roads fit for semis pushed through areas that had monument status (referring to GSENM) that no longer will if it is shrunk. As a hunter, Grand Staircase being shrunk hits me in the gut a little to think of. There's so much important habitat in that monument for mule deer, I just don't think rennet long term thing is to throw semi-roads into those areas and dig coal and pump oil. I would have no problem seeing timber harvest, protected grazing into the future, and greater road access. I would also like to see managment of it changed to where active habitat managment is easier to accomplish for wildlife. Sorry, I don't want to see oil rigs, semis, and mining all over what is now Grand Staircase National monuments. If you truly belive that that is for the greater benefit of wildlife, hunting, and the landscape for the longest amount of time....I'm sorry but you're lying to yourself or not being honest about your true motives or what you actually value about the area. The "granola bar hippies" people aren't going away even if the monument is shrunk. Shrinking Grand Staircase will only further put pressure and traffic on the areas for development and destruction of natural resources in the name of mineral ones. Grand Staircase should be left alone, it's a settled matter in time, and it's time for the bitter feelings and resentment to be let go. Because that's most of the issue, is bitterness and resentment. I do wonder how the boundaries will attempt to be changed, because I think the question will become very interesting in court if President Trump simply redraws these boundaries himself. Bears Ears has areas that should hold monument status and should be funded by congress for protection of that monument. The monument is not as far entrenched as GS, so changing boundaries now when it isn't even on current maps yet, will have far less of an affect than redrawing Grand Staircase. As a sportsman I wish to see the areas the animals I hunt depend on protected, rolling back protections on Grand Staircase does the opposite of that, and I'll oppose it all the way.

Even Utah policy's poll shows Utahns are split evenly on Bears Ears, and the majority of Utahns don't want to see Grand Staircase shrunk. And let me again repeat, that is a UTAH poll. This is a Utah driven agenda, and if you polled the average Outdoor person outside of Utah, that poll would favor Monuments much more than any poll from Utah. It amazes me there isn't even huge support from the state pushing this agenda, and yet here we are.


----------



## PBH

middlefork said:


> Sorry this had me laughing a little.
> 
> So where do these unmarked helicopters operate out of?


hehe. This had me laughing too. But, just to play a little Devil's Advocate -- please, don't think that I'm believing that this is happening. But, since someone brought up the theory of helicopters looting antiquities, and someone else questioned the plausibility of that: I think it's plausible:

http://bfy.tw/E120

Plenty of helicopters at the disposal of Lyman Family Farm owners, with land holdings and plenty of family ties to the area in question....


----------



## PBH

backcountry said:


> I backcountry hunted in the region of GSENM the last few years and have experienced the antagonistic attitudes of tourist first hand. ... I have some trepidation about locations of my hunt because of how backpackers often judge hunters. It won't stop me but it does give me some pause.
> 
> Interacting with and educating those groups is possible but I think we are bound to experience some pushback in the interim.


Interesting.

I've been hunting the Boulder for a long time. I've had lots, and lots of interaction with non-hunting tourists during hunts. In fact, one of our annual rituals is to drive out to a particular overlook and glass for elk. We talk to a lot of tourists here. This year was no different.

We spent nearly an hour with a family from New York during the archery hunt this year. It started with the typical question "What are you looking for?". The next hour was spent answering questions about hunting with archery equipment, how you pack them out, how much meat do you get, and how many animals there are. It's always fun to sit there with tourists pulling in and out, and say "if you look right down there, in that small clearing next to that big grove of trees, you can see an elk...".

We've never had a single person give us any kind of antagonistic attitude. To the contrary, we typically end up with new friends. After the hour-long conversation with the New York family, I noticed that the dozen French tourists who'd emptied out of the bus were gathering around our side-by-side taking pictures. The guide asked me how the hunting was going, and I replied. He then started explaining to the tour group, in french, what we were hunting, and how. They beamed with excitement, and started asking more, and more questions. We ended up posing with the tourists for pictures in our camo outfits, holding our bow-and-arrow equipment. They thought that was awesome, as did we.

I've never seen the anti-hunting animosity from anyone on the GSENM. Whether I've been out on the 50, Smokey Mountain, Kodachrome, or anywhere else -- I've never seen it.

personally, I do not believe that the patrons of the monuments are the group that we have to fear when it comes to hunting access and privileges.

I think the group we should fear the most is our own State leaders for trying to eliminate the public land we hunt on!


----------



## backcountry

Helicopter looting isn't just a plausibility but established fact. These guys only got caught because of one of them being idiotic enough to seek BLM help in recovering his $5000 fee.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/462643/POTHUNTER-DIGS-UP-MORE-TROUBLE.html

I still can't get past archives to find the actual pdf BLM bulletin about the search for an unmarked helicopter witnessed looting in Cedar Mesa sometime around 2007. I will keep looking.


----------



## backcountry

#1 Deer,

I think we are on the same page, ie shrinking GSENM is a bad idea (hence my habitat statement) while I am open to a shrinking of BENM. The cat is already out of the bag for BENM though so its hard to know what influence any changes may have.

I have definitely had bad and judgemental experiences with hikers in GSENM. I have never been around foreign travelers on guided tours while hunting so I can't speak to that comparison (PBH). The majority of my backcountry friends are closer aligned with anti-hunting sentiments than not. That is slowly changing. Most of those friends tend to value a preservation mindset which hunting and conservation inherently conflict with. Its an old, classic battle. I have had good interactions talking to a few who initially drew gross generalizations about hunters and our sport. They are the ones who give me hope about that tension slowly changing.

But the avoidance and tension by hikers when they see my rifle securely strapped to my pack is still palpable. And there are places in the backcountry of the Escalante canyon country that I am nervous to hunt because of such responses. As a novice its just new experience to me after decades of backpacking and mostly being oblivious to the tension.

I don't see extraction/industry and anti-hunting sentiment as an either or scenario. They both affect us, just differently in scope, quality, and timeframe.


----------



## PBH

backcountry said:


> I backcountry hunted in the region of GSENM the last few years and have experienced the antagonistic attitudes of tourist first hand.


Sorry for the second reply to this comment. It's still bugging me.

Thinking a bit more about this, I realized that we have experienced antagonistic attitudes while hunting this area. Numerous times.

Sadly, all those times I can remember having problems, it has always been from other hunters! The look-off I mentioned previously has become a popular spot to look for elk -- and the guides like to use it. It seems we get more stink-eye from them than from any tourist, hiker, biker, or LGBTQ subaru driver has ever given us.

sorry. Rant over.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Utah policies poll (republican leaning source)

Bears Ears- 49% support shrinking Bears Ears/ 46% oppose reducing Bears Ears boundaries.
Grand Staircase- 44% support shrinking Grand Staircase/ 50% oppose reducing the size of Grand Staircase.

Again keep in mind, Utah poll, right leaning source, and Utah people. The issue isn't even settled here where this ridiculous notion is coming from.

Zinke himself admitted in his release that 98% of public comments favored NOT changing our National monuments. Yes, I get it, environmental groups rallied to an extent, but guess what... I was also part of that 98%..... that 98% and half of Utahns that aren't being listened to right now.

I say again if the Antiquities Act is so wrong... and it's not political suicide to pass legislation changing it or repealing it at this point. Then do it. Limit the acreage from this point forward but don't rip up the integrity of the Antiquities Act and cut back our protected wildlife habitat and places of this state and nation, especially when you obviously don't have the support to do so.

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/fea...ewer-favor-reducing-grand-staircase-escalante


----------



## backcountry

PBH said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I backcountry hunted in the region of GSENM the last few years and have experienced the antagonistic attitudes of tourist first hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the second reply to this comment. It's still bugging me.
> 
> Thinking a bit more about this, I realized that we have experienced antagonistic attitudes while hunting this area. Numerous times.
> 
> Sadly, all those times I can remember having problems, it has always been from other hunters! The look-off I mentioned previously has become a popular spot to look for elk -- and the guides like to use it. It seems we get more stink-eye from them than from any tourist, hiker, biker, or LGBTQ subaru driver has ever given us.
> 
> sorry. Rant over.
Click to expand...

Thats fair. I don't see many other hunters during my trips. Last year I ran into two as they were hiking into the spot I had just decided to leave. Extremely friendly and we exchanged alot of detailed information.

I often skip opening weekend though. And I have seen plenty of physical impact from other hunters while little from backpackers. But that is a different story and thread.

The reality is we could both explore that unit for most of our lives and have completely different experiences. I don't think the backcountry hiker crowd is some boogeyman but I do think the crowd demographics that designations bring often have an influence on historic users. Not to mention the way the side and backcountry pressure increases and affects hunting.

Whatever happens is out of my direct control and I will just adapt.


----------



## middlefork

backcountry said:


> Helicopter looting isn't just a plausibility but established fact. These guys only got caught because of one of them being idiotic enough to seek BLM help in recovering his $5000 fee.
> 
> https://www.deseretnews.com/article/462643/POTHUNTER-DIGS-UP-MORE-TROUBLE.html
> 
> I still can't get past archives to find the actual pdf BLM bulletin about the search for an unmarked helicopter witnessed looting in Cedar Mesa sometime around 2007. I will keep looking.


Backcountry, don't spend too much time with your search. I'm sure the DEA is keeping a good lookout for low flying aircraft all over southern Utah.
My guess would be most current looting is mostly close to existing roads and trails.

I think the raid in Blanding put a little fear in the locals and if anyone knows what's going on down there it would be some of them.

As for anti hunter interaction I visit several other outdoor related sites which most would classify as hippie / treehugger orientated. In most cases they were preaching collaboration with the hunting side of things in order to maintain the current boundaries of all the monuments.

Besides those silly pacifists would be unarmed so no threat what so ever ;-)


----------



## PBH

backcountry -- Look, I understand where you're coming from. I know that desert, and I love hunting it. I also understand that the people out hiking that backcountry are different than those we typically run into in more accessible areas. I get it, and I understand.

I hope our access to that desert does not change. I love it out there. I love that I can go hunt during the rifle hunt and never see another person. There are not many places you can say that. I hope that mining, drilling, or tourist activities never change that. Like you, I imagine it's out of my control and I'll also adapt to whatever happens.


----------



## Bax*

I find this thread interesting. Bantering aside, I think that our interests align to a certain degree.

We all want to preserve these areas for our use and enjoyment, and we don't want to see the areas marred by exploitation of the resources found in these areas.

What we don't seem to agree upon is how much or how little restriction should be placed on the land should the monument sizes be reduced according to the Zinke memo.

I for one do not know enough about Bears Ears to lay an effective pro / con debate out. But I do know a lot about GSNEM and although some forum members do not agree with my position and I do not agree with theirs, I think there is common ground that can be met and I think that Zinke may be on the right track here (if it is even possible to do what he is proposing).

_BUT_ what I do want you to consider is what happens _if_ the monument boundaries are reduced. So monument lands are controlled on the Federal level currently, if certain portions are removed from the designation, who owns that land? The Federal government does. Unless the State of Utah somehow figures out a way to take control of these lands, I don't foresee much change in land usage. It will likely still see management by the BLM and some additional land use permits may be granted but I think that the status quo will likely remain.

However, if the State of Utah somehow takes control of these lands, what will the State do? I don't think that we will immediately sell off the lands to the highest bidder to privatized groups as some have implied but they may go into trust like other properties which may one day be auctioned off (which does give me heart burn). So what should the State do with the land if it takes control? Who funds management? Interesting points to consider.

Where I think that my personal view diverges from other forum members is how the monument designations affect local economies. I view the designations as a threat to the economic viability of the communities surrounding the monuments. Some make the argument that although some industry has been affected, that tourism has supplemented it. To a certain degree I agree with this concept, but the population of several communities has decreased substantially over the years which leads me to believe the economic opportunity has decreased due to historic industry reduction in output.


----------



## backcountry

Bax,

I support eco-tourism in southern Utah and I agree with much of your assessment regarding economic displacement. I believe the demographics of most eco-tourism businesses bears out the concern. Most I am aware of owned by transplants who moved to the area after monument designation. I think the rate of change placed on "locals" after monument change is often unsustainable for them. This can be compounded by the real estate purchases that can effectively push out tradional residents. With Bluff and Monticello's proximity to CO and NM I could see the latter being a bigger issue for BENM than it was for Escalante. Its unfortunate that one of the realities of tourism's reliance on service industry jobs is that many employees can't even afford to live in the towns they work in. There are many benefits to monuments and tourism but they are often oversold, oversimplified or presented with far too many blind spots.

Might be a chance for a hunting business (not guiding which I assume already exists) to locate themselves down there but there are a lot of infrastructure limitations.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I agree with why you said Bax, including on the differing opinions of us, by the same token would you agree that there is an unwillingness to adapt by the area as well? I haven’t seen real concrete evidence that the monument designation truly hurt the area, trends didn’t change much after the monument designation. I look at town like Panguich and others and feel a changing world has hurt them far more than a monument designation. We can look at places like Antimony, Koosharem, Loa, Circlville, Junction, etc. These small towns exist everywhere and are largely struggling with the same issues without monuments. The world and economy has changed, and I think that has far more to do with their struggles than some monument designation.


----------



## Bax*

Interesting question on unwillingness to change. 

Oddly a question I posed to my aunt in Escalante years ago. And the answer I received was direct (as she always was) and to the point (also very much her style): humanity seeks change and progress. But when change is forced, it encounters resistance. The change brought upon the town wasn't given with options, so the towns people weren't presented with alternatives to help them evolve. 

So yes, there is a desire to shun the change they had no input upon. If alternative solutions were presented, I believe it would've been better received.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax* said:


> Interesting question on unwillingness to change.
> 
> Oddly a question I posed to my aunt in Escalante years ago. And the answer I received was direct (as she always was) and to the point (also very much her style): humanity seeks change and progress. But when change is forced, it encounters resistance. The change brought upon the town wasn't given with options, so the towns people weren't presented with alternatives to help them evolve.
> 
> So yes, there is a desire to shun the change they had no input upon. If alternative solutions were presented, I believe it would've been better received.


I love your aunts answer, and I agree this monument was not designated in the best way, I simply think at some point its time to move forward instead of belabor the past. I understand the sentiment, but it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Removing the entire monument likely won't solve the problems for the area, and I think the cost that could come with it outweighs the gains to roll back Grand Staircases boundaries.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Understand, the people in the new BE monument area come from a farming and ranching tradition. Although they do see the "yuppie" during tourist season, I wonder what their take on an increase in tourism is. I would hope their opinion matters and that they would know what is economically best for them.

Two things of note about the whole situation, from their standpoint. 1) the gross misuse of authority during the federal "jolly seeking" raid on antiquities and 2) with the stroke of a pen, the life they know is compromised.

How will this monument affect hunting and fishing? Who knows, and no one will for a few years. Everything to this point are just theories and conjecture.


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> I wonder what their take on an increase in tourism is. I would hope their opinion matters and that they would know what is economically best for them.


My family lives in Tropic. They were ranchers. They sold the last of their cows in about 1999. My wife is an 8 cow wife.

I can guess to the answer asked by HDE above. My family hates the tourists. They bitch, moan, complain, harass, criticize, and grumble about tourists. Especially those "Wasatch Front" yuppies. 

and, yet, they depend on those very tourists for their incomes. They complain while they check air pressure in rental cars and receive a $20 tip for doing so. They complain while refilling 2nd, 3rd, and 4th drinks, then pocket the $20 tip.

the people of Escalante complain about a dwindling population and an economy in the dumps, all while a new multi-million dollar hotel is being constructed across the street from the new medical clinic and new hardware store. Too many new for struggling economy.

I understand the resistance to change. My family did not want to abandon, and still wishes to go back to, cattle ranching. But the simple facts are that they could not make a living doing it.

How many of those ranchers and farmers in Escalante receive a subsidy check from the Federal Government? That same entity that they despise?

Honestly, half the time I think that those ranchers want to continue ranching because it's a great hobby. Hell, I can't blame them! I would absolutely love to be able to spend my days outside, riding horses and atvs, watching over livestock, shooting coyotes, and scouting for that upcoming hunt. And getting a subsidy check on the side.

Listen to the county commissioners talk about Garfield County and the amount of government owned property. Why do they bring this up so much? Taxes. What do you think that county would do if they had control of those lands? They'd sell it to private interests. Every bit of it. To collect taxes. Hell no, I don't want local (state) control of those lands. I want them kept available to the public. For me. I'm selfish that way. in return, I'll continue to spend thousands of dollars each year on fuel, food, lodging, and gear in Garfield county to support those businesses who want my money. I know I'm benefiting from it.


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> Hell no, I don't want local (state) control of those lands. I want them kept available to the public. For me. I'm selfish that way.


I think this is a point that almost all of us agree upon. Which, not coincidentally, is exactly Secretary Zinke's position on these lands. So bringing us back to the topic, yes, thank you, Secretary Zinke!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> I think this is a point that almost all of us agree upon. Which, not coincidentally, is exactly Secretary Zinke's position on these lands. So bringing us back to the topic, yes, thank you, Secretary Zinke!


You can thank the man when he's right and criticize him when he is wrong. I applaud him for pushing for hunting and fishing access, there are other things he's done I'm not so fond of. PBH got the nail on the head with all those places. Panguich is the same way, unless they know you you get bad attitudes and blank stares. They are bitter and resentful. The thing is there struggles aren't localized. Sevier county, Piute, Beaver and more have many of the same struggles with their economy. Leland Pollock is a prime example of the bad attitude that resides in the area. Sometimes the finger pointing should be turned back at themselves because it is people like their commissioners and attitudes of the area that cause so many of their struggles.


----------



## backcountry

i have a fairly neutral opinion on Zinke and will likely remain that way for a while. I had the same with Jewell and Salazar. I tend to align with 1-I in that way. I take each measure individually for its harm or benefit. I no longer spend much time focused on the individual politician. There is already too much of a cult of personality surrounding these positions.

I am curious what tangible benefits Zinke has actually made for hunters and fishers? I have seen some of the memos but they seem pretty nebulous and largely symbolic. Could someone clarify what I am missing. I haven't seen anything that directly impacts hunting and fishing access or habitat in Utah yet.

Per Monuments.....I think those pushing designations seem to expect locals to change way too fast. I don't think they should shrink GSENM but I also can't say the local resentment is unwarranted. We fight for the things we love, and that includes multi-generational lifestyles and the culture that comes with it. 22+ years may seem like a long time but its not even two generations yet that have been forced to adapt to the new reality. The region was undoubtedly already being affected by the declining economies of the rural west but they got to choose how to handle that. Then the monument designation happened and alot of agency and control went out the window. If I am honest, the reason I have walked away from hardline environmentalism, almost a decade ago, is because the organizations and politicians pushing many of the measures never seem to provide viable solutions for those most effected. I can believe this while also holding local politicians accountable for not helping their constituents move forward. Its a complex situation with accountability spread out across the playing field. 

A lot of good and bad came from GSENM. I just hope whatever final shape BENM takes that its more productive in the long run and avoids the classic pitfalls that have defined the tit-for-tat nature of western land management. I am not sure that is possible at this point but I save a little hope nonetheless.


----------



## paddler

I have yet to see anything for which to thank Zinke. Supporting access to public lands? That's nothing new, we have always had that. Congratulate him for saying he wants to preserve that? The monument does that. I think the entire review and the recommendation to shrink the monuments is politically motivated, cynical and shortsighted. It seems a lot of folks agree, 98% of the public comments received by Zinke favored leaving well enough alone. So, going against the wishes 98% of the public deserves a thank you? Rubbish.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Right now I agree they are just headlines, but you have to give him some time on the improving and increasing access thing, it doesn't happen over night. Zinke has not been perfect, just like any Secretary wouldn't have been, but on some issues he needs time to prove himself on. Such as when he signs orders and things that improve hunting and fishing access. The monument issue is here and now, and we are uncovering and finding out the recommendations he laid out, so yes if we don't agree with it we can criticize him for it.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Right now I agree they are just headlines, but you have to give him some time on the improving and increasing access thing, it doesn't happen over night. Zinke has not been perfect, just like any Secretary wouldn't have been, but on some issues he needs time to prove himself on. Such as when he signs orders and things that improve hunting and fishing access. The monument issue is here and now, and we are uncovering and finding out the recommendations he laid out, so yes if we don't agree with it we can criticize him for it.


Sorry, we already know he has recommended downsizing, I think he calls it "right sizing". Right. That's a bad thing. The monument already guarantees access, any diminuition will only degrade hunting and fishing. Sheesh, you guys remind me of Neville Chamberlain.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddler said:


> Sorry, we already know he has recommended downsizing, I think he calls it "right sizing". Right. That's a bad thing. The monument already guarantees access, any diminuition will only degrade hunting and fishing. Sheesh, you guys remind me of Neville Chamberlain.


Right, and I agree with you on the national monuments. I'm just saying on other things we should give a little more time.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> Sorry, we already know he has recommended downsizing, I think he calls it "right sizing". Right. That's a bad thing. The monument already guarantees access, any diminuition will only degrade hunting and fishing. Sheesh, you guys remind me of Neville Chamberlain.


Paddler,

Did you really just compare folks who won't condemn the current Secretary of the Interior according to your subjective standards to an architect of Nazi appeasement? Do you really think that is fair in scope or content? Wow.


----------



## plottrunner

What do you expect backcounty, this is the same guy that used Obama and Legacy in the same sentence.....


Sorry mods, I know better just couldn't pass it up...:grin:-O|o--O|o--O|o--O|o-


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Paddler,
> 
> Did you really just compare folks who won't condemn the current Secretary of the Interior according to your subjective standards to an architect of Nazi appeasement? Do you really think that is fair in scope or content? Wow.


Yep. The consequences are vastly different, of course, but the mindset and refusal or inability to recognize clear threats is the same. Surprised you didn't pick up on that when I mentioned "apologists and appeasers" in a previous post.


----------



## backcountry

I saw the earlier personal attacks but going all out and bringing in Nazism, no matter how oblique, is a whole different ball of wax. The comparison is absurd and fallacious.

I wish your type of extreme rhetoric was rare but I would be lying. Real shame as this type of all or nothing attitude drives away the very moderates that causes and organizations need at moments like this. There is serious collateral damage, especially in the realm of wildlife and ecology, when this rigid definition of purity becomes the litmus test.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I saw the earlier personal attacks but going all out and bringing in Nazism, no matter how oblique, is a whole different ball of wax. The comparison is absurd and fallacious.
> 
> I wish your type of extreme rhetoric was rare but I would be lying. Real shame as this type of all or nothing attitude drives away the very moderates that causes and organizations need at moments like this. There is serious collateral damage, especially in the realm of wildlife and ecology, when this rigid definition of purity becomes the litmus test.


I raised the issue of apologism and appeasement, the actions of Chamberlain and his allies in the government at the time. You may read into it whatever you like, but I most certainly did not compare anyone to Hitler or the Nazis. That's a clear distinction, I didn't think I'd need to point that out to anyone.

But back to the topic. Bottom line, Obama designated BENM in full accordance with the Antiquities Act. The Act has no provision for any subsequent president to rescind or reduce a monument to please extraction industries or local politicos. Trump asked for the review, Zinke recommended reduction of the monuments. Herbert wants a 90% reduction. 
Several here have recommended a wait-and-see approach, when it's clear that reducing the monuments would remove protections, thereby increasing extraction and "traditional" uses, even though existing leases and grazing rights would not be impacted by the designation. You may choose to wait, but in my estimation the process for and impact of messing with the monuments can only hurt us. If you wish to call that "extreme rhetoric", go for it. I call the opposite approach naive and don't understand why some don't see the threat posed by Zinke and this administration..


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddler said:


> I raised the issue of apologism and appeasement, the actions of Chamberlain and his allies in the government at the time. You may read into it whatever you like, but I most certainly did not compare anyone to Hitler or the Nazis. That's a clear distinction, I didn't think I'd need to point that out to anyone.
> 
> But back to the topic. Bottom line, Obama designated BENM in full accordance with the Antiquities Act. The Act has no provision for any subsequent president to rescind or reduce a monument to please extraction industries or local politicos. Trump asked for the review, Zinke recommended reduction of the monuments. Herbert wants a 90% reduction.
> Several here have recommended a wait-and-see approach, when it's clear that reducing the monuments would remove protections, thereby increasing extraction and "traditional" uses, even though existing leases and grazing rights would not be impacted by the designation. You may choose to wait, but in my estimation the process for and impact of messing with the monuments can only hurt us. If you wish to call that "extreme rhetoric", go for it. I call the opposite approach naive and don't understand why some don't see the threat posed by Zinke and this administration..


paddler, I don't think Backcountry nor me are far off agreeing with you as far as the National Monument issue goes, but turn down the emotion a touch and be more reasonable. I'm with you that I will be surprised if an attempt to reduce the size of 6 monuments holds up in court. It will have its day in court if any action is taken on this and we will at this point have to wait and see. We've uncovered the recommendations to some extent, but still don't know the full details, boundary reduction sizes,etc. yet. Action hasn't been taken yet, and if it is it will be litigated to the Supreme Court. I didn't like the review and I don't care for the recommendations, but we will have to see what happens now.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> paddler, I don't think Backcountry nor me are far off agreeing with you as far as the National Monument issue goes, but turn down the emotion a touch and be more reasonable. I'm with you that I will be surprised if an attempt to reduce the size of 6 monuments holds up in court. It will have its day in court if any action is taken on this and we will at this point have to wait and see. We've uncovered the recommendations to some extent, but still don't know the full details, boundary reduction sizes,etc. yet. Action hasn't been taken yet, and if it is it will be litigated to the Supreme Court. I didn't like the review and I don't care for the recommendations, but we will have to see what happens now.


Not sure why you think I'm being emotional. I don't feel emotional. More puzzled, actually, about the lack of insight demonstrated by some posters here. I cannot see why anyone who enjoys the outdoors would thank Zinke for anything.


----------



## backcountry

If you truly want to learn"why some don't see the threat posed by Zinke and this administration" than I suggest you stop comparing them to Nazi appeasers like Chamberlain and listen. Maybe ask questions. Constantly insulting and assaulting people doesn't lead to understanding, nonetheless changing anyone's mind. 

At the end of the day we can understand each other, passionately disagree and not resort to extreme ad hominem attacks. Concluding someone like myself is naive without understanding the rational and path I walked to get there is jumping the gun. We all have vastly different experiences and educational backgrounds that allow us to slowly develop different perspectives. I think that gray area is where many of us interact on forums like this no matter how much the world outside our shared passion tries to make us think in black and white binaries. 

Can you see that spectrum and maybe not compare others to nazi appeasers in the process of interacting with us?


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> If you truly want to learn"why some don't see the threat posed by Zinke and this administration" than I suggest you stop comparing them to Nazi appeasers like Chamberlain and listen. Maybe ask questions. Constantly insulting and assaulting people doesn't lead to understanding, nonetheless changing anyone's mind.
> 
> At the end of the day we can understand each other, passionately disagree and not resort to extreme ad hominem attacks. Concluding someone like myself is naive without understanding the rational and path I walked to get there is jumping the gun. We all have vastly different experiences and educational backgrounds that allow us to slowly develop different perspectives. I think that gray area is where many of us interact on forums like this no matter how much the world outside our shared passion tries to make us think in black and white binaries.
> 
> Can you see that spectrum and maybe not compare others to nazi appeasers in the process of interacting with us?


I've listened to 15 pages on this thread, plus the other thread dedicated to Zinke. I suppose we'll just disagree.


----------



## Vanilla

In the immortal words of Cyndi Lauper, "(You) see (his) true colors, shining through..." But I digress. 

In the sports world you often hear the saying of "Sometimes the best trade is the one you didn't make." This expression is often used for business deals as well. I guess we may never know what potential horrible policies have been stopped by a secretary that is an outdoorsman that values public lands, and has put his money where his mouth is in the form of votes in the past. His power and influence is certainly not limitless, but I think he is the best option for this cabinet position under these circumstances. No secretary of the interior has ever pushed their own agenda. They exist to push the agenda of the White House. Best case scenario is trying to influence against terrible policies. 

Have I agreed with everything that has happened in the DOI since he was sworn in? Nope. Will I agree with everything that happens before he leaves the position? Likely not. But that doesn't make me all that uncomfortable. It is okay to not get what you want every time the cards fall. 

As for the monuments---I'm interested to hear one single thing I can do in BENM today that I couldn't do a year ago? How has the monument designation improved my access to hunting in fishing in that area than it was before the designation? People are asking the opposite question, and there are two sides to the coin. I won't get into the legalities that will be involved going forward. This isn't the place, nor the crowd where a fruitful discussion on that can even take place.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> As for the monuments---I'm interested to hear one single thing I can do in BENM today that I couldn't do a year ago? How has the monument designation improved my access to hunting in fishing in that area than it was before the designation? People are asking the opposite question, and there are two sides to the coin.


The reason people ask the opposite question is because that's the one that matters. We have always enjoyed unfettered access to those areas, thus access cannot possibly be improved. Your pointless question is just another pitiful straw man argument. The monument designation will guarantee access in perpetuity, and preserve habitat as well. Removing the designation will almost without doubt, because that's the point, after all, increase development, extraction, timber harvesting, etc.


----------



## Catherder

If I may interrupt the love fest, do we have any details of how much of a reduction was recommended and where, for each monument? 

I know that the leaked memo stated reductions were advised but I've heard no substantive details. 

Of course, Trump could do things entirely different than what Zinke advised anyway. Until some detail is provided, I'm struggling to get too worked up one way or another.


----------



## backcountry

I think the rephrasing of the question is fair and I don't consider it a straw man. I actually think it gives credence to the idea that there is more than just political retaliation at hand.

If GSENM is any indication, than the biggest boon to hunting in that region would be taking a landscape-wide approach to habitat that transcends BLM and USFS boundaries, ie greater collaboration. But that is uncertain and would take years to begin to implement.

Clearly, a monument does nothing for public access or the direct management of wildlife.

Much of the BENM was already _de facto _ off-limits from oil and gas development because of laws protecting antiquities. Not all but much of it for sure. That would mean little change affecting hunting from any monument designation on those lands. But the preservation standards of monuments could make rehabilitating habitat (chaining, thinning, seeding) more difficult given the number of un-surveyed archaeological sites. Double-edged sword as PJ densities continue to become post-climax? Maybe some additional protection on lands without inventoried sites until surveys happen?

Any changes to vehicular access in the form of road closures will be met with significant hurdles due to RS2477, and that region has remained at the forefront of that legal battle. i don't see any changes for/against hunting in the immediate future in the arena.

All of the benefits I saw in monument designation were largely to protect the thousands of archaeological sites in the area but that requires heavy funding which is clearly not part of the executive action. It would be great if the BLM and USFS were officially working as one unit in the area but that will be wait and see. I definitely prefer the clearer mandates that come from monuments but I would have a hard time saying that is primarily for wildlife.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Catherder said:


> If I may interrupt the love fest, do we have any details of how much of a reduction was recommended and where, for each monument?
> 
> I know that the leaked memo stated reductions were advised but I've heard no substantive details.
> 
> Of course, Trump could do things entirely different than what Zinke advised anyway. Until some detail is provided, I'm struggling to get too worked up one way or another.


No, details of reductions have not been released.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I think the rephrasing of the question is fair and I don't consider it a straw man. I actually think it gives credence to the idea that there is more than just political retaliation at hand.


Political retaliation is Trump's major motivation for ordering the review. For some reason, perhaps his insight that he's not worthy of being Obama's waterboy, he wants to erase his legacy. He apparently believes tearing Obama down will make him look better. Other motivations are long-standing distrust of the federal government so rampant in rural Utah, and, of course, greed.



backcountry said:


> If GSENM is any indication, than the biggest boon to hunting in that region would be taking a landscape-wide approach to habitat that transcends BLM and USFS boundaries, ie greater collaboration. But that is uncertain and would take years to begin to implement.
> 
> Clearly, a monument does nothing for public access or the direct management of wildlife.


Greater collaboration between agencies has to be a good thing. Left hand and right hand will get more done together than separately. Monument designation may not benefit wildlife directly, but preventing future development will benefit wildlife.



backcountry said:


> Much of the BENM was already _de facto _ off-limits from oil and gas development because of laws protecting antiquities. Not all but much of it for sure. That would mean little change affecting hunting from any monument designation on those lands. But the preservation standards of monuments could make rehabilitating habitat (chaining, thinning, seeding) more difficult given the number of un-surveyed archaeological sites. Double-edged sword as PJ densities continue to become post-climax? Maybe some additional protection on lands without inventoried sites until surveys happen?


Protecting areas prior to surveying sounds like a good thing. I don't see why chaining and reseeding to improve habitat would be prohibited inside monuments.



backcountry said:


> Any changes to vehicular access in the form of road closures will be met with significant hurdles due to RS2477, and that region has remained at the forefront of that legal battle. i don't see any changes for/against hunting in the immediate future in the arena.
> 
> All of the benefits I saw in monument designation were largely to protect the thousands of archaeological sites in the area but that requires heavy funding which is clearly not part of the executive action. It would be great if the BLM and USFS were officially working as one unit in the area but that will be wait and see. I definitely prefer the clearer mandates that come from monuments but I would have a hard time saying that is primarily for wildlife


Management by consensus would be the best outcome. Now, with the monument's future in question, federal agencies are doing nothing. Thank you, Mr. Zinke. See what I did there?


----------



## backcountry

Per question about habitat....any habitat restoration project would likely have to go through a more rigorous EIS given the areas resource focus. There are countless areas of plateau top ruins and fields and fields of lithic scatter. The same level of policy that affects extraction based projects will impact wildlife tools that have any impact on soils, etc. 

Habitat restoration projects will be affected. And monument status draws greater vigilance from environmental organizations that will go through EIS and other NEPA documents with a fine tooth comb. Several high profile organizations have always gotten their members riled up over high impact habitat projects and that will only increase in an area with such high densities of cultural artifacts.


----------



## PBH

Vanilla said:


> As for the monuments---I'm interested to hear one single thing I can do in BENM today that I couldn't do a year ago?


Today: you can visit BENM.
1 year ago: you could not visit BENM.

:mrgreen:

(I love you 'Nilla!)


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

PBH said:


> Today: you can visit BENM.
> 1 year ago: you could not visit BENM.
> 
> :mrgreen:
> 
> (I love you 'Nilla!)


This is funny


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> Today: you can visit BENM.
> 1 year ago: you could not visit BENM.
> 
> :mrgreen:
> 
> (I love you 'Nilla!)


This is actually a true statement, and I have no comeback for it. Well done, PBH!


----------



## gdog

http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/09/22/gehrke-the-four-things-you-should-know-about-the-once-secret-bears-ears-recommendations/


----------



## paddler

gdog said:


> http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/09/22/gehrke-the-four-things-you-should-know-about-the-once-secret-bears-ears-recommendations/


Yep, the "review" was a complete sham. Anybody still want to thank Zinke? Any more appeasers and apologists out there? I love the D-plus part. Of course, that's more than a full letter grade higher than others...


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> ...The monument designation will guarantee access in perpetuity, and preserve habitat as well. Removing the designation will almost without doubt, because that's the point, after all, increase development, extraction, timber harvesting, etc.


Paddler - please provide the reserves calculations and estimates to show me what kind of extraction potential there is. I know of already existing dry hole markers, however, there may be some other mineral or resource available.

Thanks


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Paddler - please provide the reserves calculations and estimates to show me what kind of extraction potential there is. I know of already existing dry hole markers, however, there may be some other mineral or resource available.
> 
> Thanks


As Gherke points out, there aren't many mineral reserves inside the monument, which puts the lie to the local politico's assertions that it's a job killer. There are resources just east of it. He says in the article that it's almost like somebody drew the boundary purposely to allow extraction where resources are available. Which means that the local opposition is borne more of distrust of outsiders and the federal government, not the product of rational thought. It's federal land, the locals don't have any more claim to it than people who live in NYC.


----------



## backcountry

I see the map referring to reserves but I am confused by the inconsistency between those demarcations and the fact there are tons of "oil & gas wells" marked outside those known fields. Can anybody explain?  Are those active wells?


----------



## High Desert Elk

You looking at the Aneth/Montezuma Creek area south and the Natarita area east?


----------



## paddler

I can't thank Zinke enough:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...an-juan-lands-rich-in-ancient-puebloan-ruins/

Anybody still optimistic???


----------



## backcountry

Seems status quo. 

I think the documents need to be read carefully and any impact on antiquities needs to be mitigated fully. Existing law supports that approach.

Per the Obama guidelines...any attempt to unilaterally influence major public lands policy without legislation is inherently vulnerable. The idea that we continue to condone executive action on something as big as expanding restrictions on development to protect "night skies, natural sound, clean air and cultural resources in and around our national parks" means it will almost surely be undermined every 4-8 years, if historic trends maintain themselves. If we want to expand protections around parks and monuments then pass it by law so it has some permanence. 

Assuming these are meaningful protections without the weight of law is problematic. I value night skies and clean air and vast swaths of protected land but time and time again I have seen how liberal use of presidential power can actually erode the legitimacy of those long term goals.

I need to read the actual BLM reports before deciding if this is in the best interest of hunters.


----------



## paddler

More good news:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...al-oil-and-gas-leases-on-sage-grouse-habitat/

And, a loyalty test for Interior employees? He wants to diminish the ESA, speed up energy development, oil drilling and logging. I love his quote about fracking, but he should have credited Franklin:

https://apnews.com/570c910d21be41869f76d45a2c55c359


----------



## gdog

Some more....

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45954968&nid=757&title=us-interior-chief-wants-smaller-monuments-but-not-at-home

"BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has closely followed his boss' playbook, encouraging mining and drilling on public lands and reducing the size of national monuments that President Donald Trump called a "massive land grab" by his Democratic predecessors.

Except, that is, in Montana.

In Zinke's home state, the former congressman who has long harbored higher political ambitions is recommending Trump create a new national monument out of the forests bordering Glacier National Park, to the disappointment of a company that wants to drill for natural gas there.

A couple hundred miles away, where rocky bluffs line the Missouri River, he decided to leave intact a 590-square-mile (1,528-square-kilometer) monument that for 16 years has stirred the kind of impassioned local opposition that Zinke cited in justifying changes to monuments elsewhere.

*And he wants to curb mining along Montana's border with Yellowstone National Park. That could discourage development of two proposed mines that supporters say would offer higher paying jobs than tourism.*

*The decision was based on Zinke's belief that "some places are too precious to mine," his spokeswoman said last month.*"


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

gdog said:


> Some more....
> 
> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45954968&nid=757&title=us-interior-chief-wants-smaller-monuments-but-not-at-home
> 
> "BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has closely followed his boss' playbook, encouraging mining and drilling on public lands and reducing the size of national monuments that President Donald Trump called a "massive land grab" by his Democratic predecessors.
> 
> Except, that is, in Montana.
> 
> In Zinke's home state, the former congressman who has long harbored higher political ambitions is recommending Trump create a new national monument out of the forests bordering Glacier National Park, to the disappointment of a company that wants to drill for natural gas there.
> 
> A couple hundred miles away, where rocky bluffs line the Missouri River, he decided to leave intact a 590-square-mile (1,528-square-kilometer) monument that for 16 years has stirred the kind of impassioned local opposition that Zinke cited in justifying changes to monuments elsewhere.
> 
> *And he wants to curb mining along Montana's border with Yellowstone National Park. That could discourage development of two proposed mines that supporters say would offer higher paying jobs than tourism.*
> 
> *The decision was based on Zinke's belief that "some places are too precious to mine," his spokeswoman said last month.*"


Interesting isn't it? Save your favorite places and use the rest for political payback to faithful Utah politicians. Grand Staircase will not be better off with oil rigs and coal mines. Not for the wildlife, not for hunting, not for recreation, and not for the future. We will undoubtedly see an attempt to shrink it to a fraction of what it is, and the truth is, politics and bitter feelings aside, it is not what is best for the greatest amount of people for the greatest amount of time. It is short sighted and sad to think development must happen no matter what other uses and meanings peace's of land can have. Was it done I'm the best way? No. Was it probably too big when it was created? Probably. But, I go to it every year and am sure glad it remains a protected landscape that will be there as it is forever if we don't decide the short term outweighs the long game.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> More good news:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...al-oil-and-gas-leases-on-sage-grouse-habitat/
> 
> And, a loyalty test for Interior employees? He wants to diminish the ESA, speed up energy development, oil drilling and logging. I love his quote about fracking, but he should have credited Franklin:
> 
> https://apnews.com/570c910d21be41869f76d45a2c55c359


Where did Zinke state he was creating a "loyalty" test? That seems to be falsified.

Disappointed in the AP, who I normally use as a primary source. According to their own quotes, Zinke didn't make a statement about loyalty to him or Trump but about loyalty to the flag. There is a difference and its big.

Zinke also didn't call for diminishing the ESA but made statements about "abuse" and its "arbitrary" use. From the AP:

"On other topics, Zinke said the Endangered Species Act has been "abused" by bureaucrats and environmental groups and needs to be reformed to be less "arbitrary.""

Hard to know his exact wording without a transcript. But reform means something completely different than diminish.

Stories like this really expose how our bubbles amplify certain editorialized narratives. One source will praise him while another paints it as "red scare McCarthyism". Media literacy is more important than ever and going to the primary source is key.

Still skeptically neutral on his impact to hunters.


----------



## backcountry

Anybody fact check this article yet?

https://medium.com/westwise/all-of-the-falsehoods-in-donald-trumps-secret-national-monuments-report

It lends credence to my skepticism about the unsubstantiated claims by Zinke that anything in this particular issue helps hunters.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Where did Zinke state he was creating a "loyalty" test? That seems to be falsified.
> 
> Disappointed in the AP, who I normally use as a primary source. According to their own quotes, Zinke didn't make a statement about loyalty to him or Trump but about loyalty to the flag. There is a difference and its big.
> 
> Zinke also didn't call for diminishing the ESA but made statements about "abuse" and its "arbitrary" use. From the AP:
> 
> "On other topics, Zinke said the Endangered Species Act has been "abused" by bureaucrats and environmental groups and needs to be reformed to be less "arbitrary.""
> 
> Hard to know his exact wording without a transcript. But reform means something completely different than diminish.
> 
> Stories like this really expose how our bubbles amplify certain editorialized narratives. One source will praise him while another paints it as "red scare McCarthyism". Media literacy is more important than ever and going to the primary source is key.
> 
> Still skeptically neutral on his impact to hunters.


When you consider Clement, who is a climate scientist, and 50 other senior Interior employees have been reassigned for no apparent reason, it appears Zinke confuses loyalty to the flag and our country with loyalty to Trump and himself. So perhaps there is no sit down test. Maybe Zinke just guessed at the beliefs of our Interior employees:

https://apnews.com/570c910d21be41869f76d45a2c55c359

Also, excuse me for jumping to conclusions about the ESA. There is absolutely no reason to think Zinke's comments could possibly lead to diminishing protections for threatened or endangered species. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I find such rhetoric troubling.


----------



## backcountry

First, we both agree there is troublesome rhetoric. But my skepticism, galvanized by a degree in science, requires me to apply that same approach to the rhetoric surrounding Zinke's statements and actions. Skepticism is a sharp, double-edged sword. 

Regarding Joel Clement and other SES employees, time will tell. There are two investigations underway that are expected to shine a light on the legality of those reassignments. If there is evidence that Zinke's decision was illegal and motivated by retaliation than I will have no hesitation in calling it out. I know climate scientist who worked in the WH and I am fully aware of their concerns and the environment after the transition. I just believe in waiting for the experts to provide the needed evidence from detailed inquiry before jumping the gun. 

Same goes for the ESA rhetoric on both sides. I have worked with the ESA, especially in the human dynamics realm. I know how important the law is but I also know how imperfect its been in application. If it turns out he is trying to gut relevant policy I'll rightfully condemn him. But if he tries to improve upon it, like programs we have seen the last decade or more, then I will compliment him. But make no mistake, his criticism of the difficulty in delisting is real (similar for listing, but not same in content or character). 

The reality is we just lack critical information to draw many objective conclusions yet. Its only 8 months into this thing and it takes time for these issues to be given enough daylight to expose the truth. 

My skepticism is alive and well right now. My hackles are up. But that gut concern and intuition now must wait patiently for more details. I just wish the media showed similar restraint and would stop editorializing these events.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> First, we both agree there is troublesome rhetoric. But my skepticism, galvanized by a degree in science, requires me to apply that same approach to the rhetoric surrounding Zinke's statements and actions. Skepticism is a sharp, double-edged sword.
> 
> Regarding Joel Clement and other SES employees, time will tell. There are two investigations underway that are expected to shine a light on the legality of those reassignments. If there is evidence that Zinke's decision was illegal and motivated by retaliation than I will have no hesitation in calling it out. I know climate scientist who worked in the WH and I am fully aware of their concerns and the environment after the transition. I just believe in waiting for the experts to provide the needed evidence from detailed inquiry before jumping the gun.
> 
> Same goes for the ESA rhetoric on both sides. I have worked with the ESA, especially in the human dynamics realm. I know how important the law is but I also know how imperfect its been in application. If it turns out he is trying to gut relevant policy I'll rightfully condemn him. But if he tries to improve upon it, like programs we have seen the last decade or more, then I will compliment him. But make no mistake, his criticism of the difficulty in delisting is real (similar for listing, but not same in content or character).
> 
> The reality is we just lack critical information to draw many objective conclusions yet. Its only 8 months into this thing and it takes time for these issues to be given enough daylight to expose the truth.
> 
> My skepticism is alive and well right now. My hackles are up. But that gut concern and intuition now must wait patiently for more details. I just wish the media showed similar restraint and would stop editorializing these events.


You may not be able to draw conclusions from information currently available, but things are very clear to me. Trump has said that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Interior chief reassigns top employees who aren't "loyal", including climate scientist. Now, why on God's green earth would he do that?? Whether or not the reassignments are ultimately judged legal or not is irrelevant. They are attempting to change the Interior department work environment, making science deniers welcome. Same Interior chief speaks out against the ESA. You want to wait till the other shoe drops?

I just don't understand why people think these folks deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's more prudent and realistic to view them as guilty until proven innocent of acting against the best interests of outdoorsmen. Zinke has already recommended reducing monuments, after all. That's more than enough for me. Mark my words, it will take a long time to repair the damage inflicted by this administration.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, we both agree there is troublesome rhetoric. But my skepticism, galvanized by a degree in science, requires me to apply that same approach to the rhetoric surrounding Zinke's statements and actions. Skepticism is a sharp, double-edged sword.
> 
> Regarding Joel Clement and other SES employees, time will tell. There are two investigations underway that are expected to shine a light on the legality of those reassignments. If there is evidence that Zinke's decision was illegal and motivated by retaliation than I will have no hesitation in calling it out. I know climate scientist who worked in the WH and I am fully aware of their concerns and the environment after the transition. I just believe in waiting for the experts to provide the needed evidence from detailed inquiry before jumping the gun.
> 
> Same goes for the ESA rhetoric on both sides. I have worked with the ESA, especially in the human dynamics realm. I know how important the law is but I also know how imperfect its been in application. If it turns out he is trying to gut relevant policy I'll rightfully condemn him. But if he tries to improve upon it, like programs we have seen the last decade or more, then I will compliment him. But make no mistake, his criticism of the difficulty in delisting is real (similar for listing, but not same in content or character).
> 
> The reality is we just lack critical information to draw many objective conclusions yet. Its only 8 months into this thing and it takes time for these issues to be given enough daylight to expose the truth.
> 
> My skepticism is alive and well right now. My hackles are up. But that gut concern and intuition now must wait patiently for more details. I just wish the media showed similar restraint and would stop editorializing these events.
> 
> 
> 
> You may not be able to draw conclusions from information currently available, but things are very clear to me. Trump has said that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Interior chief reassigns top employees who aren't "loyal", including climate scientist. Now, why on God's green earth would he do that?? Whether or not the reassignments are ultimately judged legal or not is irrelevant. They are attempting to change the Interior department work environment, making science deniers welcome. Same Interior chief speaks out against the ESA. You want to wait till the other shoe drops?
> 
> I just don't understand why people think these folks deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's more prudent and realistic to view them as guilty until proven innocent of acting against the best interests of outdoorsmen. Zinke has already recommended reducing monuments, after all. That's more than enough for me. Mark my words, it will take a long time to repair the damage inflicted by this administration.
Click to expand...

First off, the only thing we can do is wait. We have no direct power and I have seen no evidence that Zinke is vulnerable to indirect efforts like protest. Jumping to conclusions doesn't solve anything even if its cathartic

Second, you don't understand others approach because you choose not to understand. A diverse group of hunters has explained themselves to you countless times. For me, it because I value facts and knowledge more than assumptions. I value skepticism more than partisanship. That may leave me vulnerable (not in any meaningful way) to some malicious behavior on occasion but to be honest thats almost a guarantee in life. I personally think (a statement i believe you would benefit from using more often) that its hard to know what is "prudent and realistic" with the current cookie crumbs we have. And to be honest, I find it difficult to have an objective standard to define those words in the way you use them.

You actually don't have enough evidence yet to conclude they are trying to make climate scientist unwelcome. We may have a hunch, which my friends in the government have as well, but investigations will help turn up how factual that assumption is. That is why the investigation and legality matters. There are other possibilities which align with Zinke's other statements regarding work culture that also remain consistent with the purpose of the SES. And remember, unprecedented is Trump's mission regarding government culture. I don't have to agree with his philosophy but that doesn't give me a pass to make such broad assumptions with any real certainty.

Sometimes its fine to just say "I/we don't know".

I have never had a problem with you personally choosing to not trust Zinke. Your values and experiences get to freely shape that conclusion. I choose to respect that choice. I just have a problem with the level of certainty in which you express subjective opinions and phase them as if they are objective fact. I have a problem with your expressed unwillingness to understand and respect differing views.

So it goes. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in the 4 or 8 years of this administration.


----------



## paddler

I spoke recently with a long time BLM employee. These are career professionals, loyal to the flag, constitution, their own guidelines and mission of administering our public lands. This person has worked for the Interior department for 18 years, their jobs span many administrations. The current leadership has caused consternation and confusion. Trump and Zinke are a distraction at best and are seen by many as a threat to their professions. Energy independence is the primary focus. My personal conviction is that the leadership is poor. Zinke's report on the national monuments was called a high school "D" document, Trump knows nothing about public lands and cares even less. I think our public lands and dedicated federal employees deserve better. We'll see how this plays out. The monument issue will wind its way through the courts, but energy development will still threaten all outdoorsmen. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, of course.


----------



## High Desert Elk

The long time BLM employees I know at a mineral's office said the same thing about the obama administration, only the directive was clear - no new development. Not because of the interest of outdoorsmen, but the disdain for fossil fuels.

In order to shrink the size of the federal gov't, which most people want, you have to shrink the size of a land management office and program. So, yeah, I would think that federal land managers are fearful for their employment.

They are facing the same thing we do day to day...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> The long time BLM employees I know at a mineral's office said the same thing about the obama administration, only the directive was clear - no new development. Not because of the interest of outdoorsmen, but the disdain for fossil fuels.
> 
> In order to shrink the size of the federal gov't, which most people want, you have to shrink the size of a land management office and program. So, yeah, I would think that federal land managers are fearful for their employment.
> 
> They are facing the same thing we do day to day...


I think we need more manpower managing our federal lands. Visitation is high and will only increase. Investment in infrastructure, maintenance and manpower to enhance visitor's experience and safety, as well as minimizing impact, is a good thing. I'd bet that our career Interior employees are far better at their jobs than Trump or Zinke. Pretty low bar, actually, so if you want to fire people, I can give you a few names.

Of course, if you want to decrease visitation and tourism dollars, you should be pleased with our current path. I took care of a couple from New Zealand yesterday who were here to tour our state. They didn't come to see coal mines or oil wells.


----------



## gdog

https://www.yahoo.com/news/interior-secretary-ryan-zinke-stuck-114030363.html

"He and several staffers flew on a Beechcraft King Air 200 from Las Vegas, where Zinke had a speaking engagement, to Montana on June 26, an internal calendar obtained by Politico revealed. *The plane, according to The Washington Post, belongs to Nielson & Associates, a Wyoming-based oil-and-gas exploration firm.* The Interior Department paid for the charter. "


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> I think we need more manpower managing our federal lands. Visitation is high and will only increase. Investment in infrastructure, maintenance and manpower to enhance visitor's experience and safety, as well as minimizing impact, is a good thing. I'd bet that our career Interior employees are far better at their jobs than Trump or Zinke. Pretty low bar, actually, so if you want to fire people, I can give you a few names.
> 
> Of course, if you want to decrease visitation and tourism dollars, you should be pleased with our current path. I took care of a couple from New Zealand yesterday who were here to tour our state. They didn't come to see coal mines or oil wells.


I believe you, that they came to see some country that you cannot see anywhere else in the world.

However, if your model above comes to fruition, sportsman such as we, can say goodbye to how these lands are currently used. This is not tinfoil hat fear mongering either.

A pacifist from wherever will not want to see someone shoot a 370 class bull on Elk Ridge in Sept as they peacefully view the majesty of the mighty Wapiti...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> I believe you, that they came to see some country that you cannot see anywhere else in the world.
> 
> However, if your model above comes to fruition, sportsman such as we, can say goodbye to how these lands are currently used. This is not tinfoil hat fear mongering either.
> 
> A pacifist from wherever will not want to see someone shoot a 370 class bull on Elk Ridge in Sept as they peacefully view the majesty of the mighty Wapiti...


Hunting will continue to be managed by the DWR. Your assertion sure looks like tin foil hat fear mongering to me.


----------



## paddler

gdog said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/interior-secretary-ryan-zinke-stuck-114030363.html
> 
> "He and several staffers flew on a Beechcraft King Air 200 from Las Vegas, where Zinke had a speaking engagement, to Montana on June 26, an internal calendar obtained by Politico revealed. *The plane, according to The Washington Post, belongs to Nielson & Associates, a Wyoming-based oil-and-gas exploration firm.* The Interior Department paid for the charter. "


Price is gone because he took charter and military flights instead of flying commercial like his predecessors, thereby costing taxpayers ~$1 million. Think we could raise $1 million to get rid of Zinke?

Throughout this thread and the previous one people were speculating just how bad Zinke would be for sportsmen. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone heading the Interior department we were genuinely excited about? What if the priority was to balance multiple use; emphasizing conservation, preservation, antiquity protection, habitat improvement, hunting and fishing access, while allowing development where appropriate?


----------



## paddler

Apparently, this isn't the first time Zinke has pulled this crap:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/did-ryan-zinke-defraud-government/


----------



## High Desert Elk

Paddler - no tinfoil hat. I know people hunting on the Valles Caldera NP in NM who have had visiting patrons whoop and hollar when they saw a legal and licensed hunter try and shoot a bull on a legal hunt administered by NMDGF.

To think it will not change hunting on a National Monument in UT is nonsensical at best...


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk,

I think there are a few, rare people in most situations in life who would find a way to disturb legal activities they don't agree with. Not sure what we can do about that. As previously mentioned, I have experienced animosity directly on the Boulder unit but even that never involved interference. Others have said they have had mostly good experiences with monument tourists. Guess it will be wait and see which prediction comes true.

Paddler,

You do know Jewell used charter flights on occasion as well, correct? She racked up about $40k in flights her last few years. The key to these issues is the standard of practice and in government there judgement via ethics committees. I would think its fair to say $1 million in 9 months is unethical but hard to judge one $12k flight yet. The ethics committee reviewed it as within law and guidelines. And, ironically, from several sources it was the same fossil fuel corporate jet Jewell initially contracted and has been used by wildland firefighters in the previous years. 

His Navy Seal issues are a different story from the above analysis. Ridiculous if its true but hard to vet given its from anonymous sources, not written as such in his official record and Seal records are classified. If he did fraudulently charge the government for personal travel than it should have been explicitly recorded and consequenced. If true then that was a significant failure on the governments part.

If there is more to the ethics claims then I think good investigative journalist will turn it up.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> High Desert Elk,
> 
> I think there are a few, rare people in most situations in life who would find a way to disturb legal activities they don't agree with. Not sure what we can do about that. As previously mentioned, I have experienced animosity directly on the Boulder unit but even that never involved interference. Others have said they have had mostly good experiences with monument tourists. Guess it will be wait and see which prediction comes true.
> 
> Paddler,
> 
> You do know Jewell used charter flights on occasion as well, correct? She racked up about $40k in flights her last few years. The key to these issues is the standard of practice and in government there judgement via ethics committees. I would think its fair to say $1 million in 9 months is unethical but hard to judge one $12k flight yet. The ethics committee reviewed it as within law and guidelines. And, ironically, from several sources it was the same fossil fuel corporate jet Jewell initially contracted and has been used by wildland firefighters in the previous years.
> 
> His Navy Seal issues are a different story from the above analysis. Ridiculous if its true but hard to vet given its from anonymous sources, not written as such in his official record and Seal records are classified. If he did fraudulently charge the government for personal travel than it should have been explicitly recorded and consequenced. If true then that was a significant failure on the governments part.
> 
> If there is more to the ethics claims then I think good investigative journalist will turn it up.


I agree, $40,000 in several years is significantly different from $1,000,000 over, what is it, 4 months? The reporting I saw said he'd taken 24 flights since May. If we assume "several years" means three years, and Price racked up $1,000,000 in 4 months, he would have spent roughly $9,000,000 in the same time Jewell spent $40,000. Oh, and he also wanted to reopen the executive dining room at HHS, along with an executive chef. Public service is good work if you can get it.

In Zinke's case, it looks like the folks who approved his travel expenses actually work under him. I've read that Price's travel also passed scrutiny by ethics people at HHS. It seems possible that there may be a lack of objectivity in the review process.

Mnuchin and others feel also entitled to taxpayer paid personal travel. Yessiree, nothing like draining the swamp:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/steven-mnuchin-military-jet-use/index.html


----------



## backcountry

The Jewell comparison is an apples to apples comparison to Zinke, not Price. The same office would have approved her travel with the same implications for bias. She was also a former engineer for Mobil and started using the "oil company" charter service Zinke used. But we were able to look past that connection.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> The Jewell comparison is an apples to apples comparison to Zinke, not Price. The same office would have approved her travel with the same implications for bias. She was also a former engineer for Mobil and started using the "oil company" charter service Zinke used. But we were able to look past that connection.


It would be interesting to drill down a bit more into Jewell's use vs Zinke's. Zinke flew from Las Vegas, where he gave a motivational speech to a hockey team owned by a Bill Foley, who was a major contributor to Zinke's congressional campaigns, to his home in Montana. It's not clear that speaking to a donor's hockey team can be construed as official Interior department business.

It's also not clear that intradepartmental ethics reviews of non commercial travel by the head of said department is anything but a rubber stamp.


----------



## backcountry

I don't know enough about ethics committees to make such a judgement. We do know such committees and officers in other departments have called out Trump and others openly thus far. As a question of consistency, did you remain this vigilant about each Sec. Of Dept of Interior travel? If not, why? Jewell was an executive at REI which has huge influence on OAI decision making. She gave a keynote to the 2014 Winter Market OAI when she was Sec. She also implemented policy about the outdoor industry while Sec. 

I ask and bring these up as this type of vigilance is more often than not a one sided weapon employed by opposition to whoever is in office.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I don't know enough about ethics committees to make such a judgement. We do know such committees and officers in other departments have called out Trump and others openly thus far. As a question of consistency, did you remain this vigilant about each Sec. Of Dept of Interior travel? If not, why? Jewell was an executive at REI which has huge influence on OAI decision making. She gave a keynote to the 2014 Winter Market OAI when she was Sec. She also implemented policy about the outdoor industry while Sec.
> 
> I ask and bring these up as this type of vigilance is more often than not a one sided weapon employed by opposition to whoever is in office.


Good points. I never had questions about widespread corruption during the Obama administration, so my hackles weren't up. You seem to imply there is an equivalence between the current administration and the previous one. Generally speaking, I believe there exists a stark difference between the two regarding corruption. More on topic, Obama didn't order Jewell to review our national monuments in order to reduce or rescind them. I figured Jewell, having come from REI, is an honest person interested in conservation. Her bio, as well as REI's history of supporting conservation supports my conclusions. I don't recall any credible reporting anywhere impugning her integrity, character or the way she discharged her duties. She was a true friend to outdoorsmen. I'm sure if there was any dirt the Republicans would have made a mountain of it.

I think it is proper that she gave a speech to the OIA in 2014, as Interior policy directly affects them (and us, BTW). She left REI when she was appointed by Obama, and had thus nothing to gain from her position. Also, because she left REI in 2013, she relinquished any influence over OIA at that time. No self dealing, unlike our present administration.

Of course, I'm unapologetically biased. As an avid outdoorsmen and ardent conservationist, who takes to heart the "Take only pictures, leave only footprints" thing, slightly modified to include that one should feel free to take the harvestable surplus so long as it's done according to the highest ethical standards and used responsibly, and one who values our public lands and feels they should be protected, I have assumed the worst about Zinke. He hasn't disappointed thus far.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Of course, I'm unapologetically biased. As an avid outdoorsmen and ardent conservationist, who takes to heart the "Take only pictures, leave only footprints" thing, slightly modified to include that one should feel free to take the harvestable surplus so long as it's done according to the highest ethical standards and used responsibly, and one who values our public lands and feels they should be protected, I have assumed the worst about Zinke. He hasn't disappointed thus far.


Do you realize everything you are against creates that surplus? Habitat improvements, wildlife transplants, predator controls aren't natural.

BHA member I'm sure.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Do you realize everything you are against creates that surplus? Habitat improvements, wildlife transplants, predator controls aren't natural.
> 
> BHA member I'm sure.


Of course BHA is a great organization and I myself am a proud member just as I'm sure paddler is. When Sportsmen realize they need groups like BHA in addition to groups that do on the ground habitat work we will start winning more. OO, you seem to not realize that I'm tact habitat and protected migration cooridors and winter ranges are just as vital to wildlife as any habitat project or transplant is. If you've ever noticed anti-hunting groups don't win by on the ground work, they win by taking the fight to DC, which is what BHA does on behalf of hunters. They do a lot of good things and a lot of good advocacy for hunting, wildlife, and wild places. Habitat improvements, transplants, and predator control are all important and helpful peace's of wildlife managment. Maintaining in tact wild ecosystems, migration cooridors, winter ranges, and protecting wild swaths of land from development are not only important but also vital to the future of many species especially things like mule deer, pronghorn, elk, sage grouse, etc.


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Do you realize everything you are against creates that surplus? Habitat improvements, wildlife transplants, predator controls aren't natural.
> 
> BHA member I'm sure.


Wrong on all counts.


----------



## backcountry

I agree with the ethical standards and many of the values you espouse. I just learned to separate myself from the organizations and partisanship once I realized there was more loyalty to party/outcome than the values being applied consistently. I do disagree with the analysis on Jewell. The same critique about buddy buddy relationships Zinke has with oil applies to her and the outdoor recreation market. She may have resigned but make no mistake the OAI had a direct friendship with her and that she did not discard those networks when making decisions. That is how power works and why organizations intentionally develop relationships with friendly ears they can sway. The OAI made it clear they are a political organization now and the same skepticism I apply to oil companies must be used against them as I value watch dogging power politics and special interests. I can't in good faith just forfeit that tool if it just happens to support my personal preferences.

I can't blame you for distrusting Zinke but if there is any goal to persuade others to do the same than that is an almost insurmountable request if folks don't see your willingness to do the same with your affiliations. I say that as I have seen the power negotiations of conservation groups sink missions because they weren't vulnerable to the very tools they used. 

I've said it before and I say it again, I think conservation groups need a paradigm shift in strategy. The past techniques are one the many variables that led to the appeal of Trump and his appointees. If conservation and recreation groups don't inventory themselves to understand that possibility then I fear we are doomed to repeat this situation countless times.


----------



## backcountry

The "natural" descriptor was always a flawed one. Its rooted in preservation, not conservation. LNT is a framework for recreational users not managers. 

We as hunters have diverse opinions about what tools to apply and how to apply them but I think the majority of us recognize the general benefit of active management. At the end of the day we are forced to counter "unnatural" effects from urban sprawl, human caused habitat fragmentation, global warming, etc. Those impacts require active management, ie not allowing the environment to passively heal itself.

I think that exposes alot of mutual overlap amongst diverse hunters.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I agree with the ethical standards and many of the values you espouse. I just learned to separate myself from the organizations and partisanship once I realized there was more loyalty to party/outcome than the values being applied consistently. I do disagree with the analysis on Jewell. The same critique about buddy buddy relationships Zinke has with oil applies to her and the outdoor recreation market. She may have resigned but make no mistake the OAI had a direct friendship with her and that she did not discard those networks when making decisions. That is how power works and why organizations intentionally develop relationships with friendly ears they can sway. The OAI made it clear they are a political organization now and the same skepticism I apply to oil companies must be used against them as I value watch dogging power politics and special interests. I can't in good faith just forfeit that tool if it just happens to support my personal preferences.
> 
> I can't blame you for distrusting Zinke but if there is any goal to persuade others to do the same than that is an almost insurmountable request if folks don't see your willingness to do the same with your affiliations. I say that as I have seen the power negotiations of conservation groups sink missions because they weren't vulnerable to the very tools they used.
> 
> I've said it before and I say it again, I think conservation groups need a paradigm shift in strategy. The past techniques are one the many variables that led to the appeal of Trump and his appointees. If conservation and recreation groups don't inventory themselves to understand that possibility then I fear we are doomed to repeat this situation countless times.


I don't put party first. I put policy first. So doing doesn't free us from bias, in fact, policies we support reflect our biases, and those biases cause us to support those who act in accordance with them. As you say, Jewell obviously developed relationships with others in the OIA, but that's because they have shared values. Birds of a feather. It just so happens that the Democratic agenda most closely aligns with my personal beliefs. The same holds true for the other side, though I find it difficult to understand how Utah's outdoorsmen can support the Republican agenda regarding public land management.

So, the real test is whether or not one is willing to sacrifice ones values for party. I'm not optimistic about the future because we are so polarized. Changing minds may be impossible, so change may take a long time.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I don't put party first. I put policy first.


Ha!


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> So, the real test is whether or not one is willing to sacrifice ones values for party. I'm not optimistic about the future because we are so polarized. Changing (everyone who disagrees with me) minds may be impossible, so change may take a long time.


There fixed it fer ya :grin:


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> There fixed it fer ya :grin:


Exactly. More people need to listen to me.;-)


----------



## OriginalOscar

Can we let this thread die? 

It's hunting season.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I 2nd the motion. It all started with an article about freeing up wilderness in NM through efforts with RMEF...


----------



## paddler

I don't think it needs to die, as the jury's still out on Zinke. Participation is voluntary.


----------



## JerryH

paddler said:


> I don't think it needs to die, as the jury's still out on Zinke. Participation is voluntary.


Haven't you been banned yet? lol


----------



## JerryH

Is there a way to (like) your own post??

Stir to a low boil lol


----------



## paddler

Now a federal investigation:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ing-under-investigation/ar-AAsUzfQ?li=BBnbcA1

Looks like Kellyanne jetted around with Price, too. Nice.


----------



## paddler

Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, you're showing your true colors. Anybody still optimistic?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/...sage-grouse-habitat-including-231000-in-utah/

Don't know if anybody saw it, but the Democrats are pushing for transparency regarding Bears Ears:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ore-transparency-in-national-monument-review/

So, you have Republicans wanting energy development at the expense of habitat, and Democrats wanting to preserve our public lands. This is what I mean when I say policy drives my political affiliations, not the other way around.


----------



## Dunkem

One.


----------



## paddler

Dunkem said:


> One.


Better?


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> So, you have Republicans wanting energy development at the expense of habitat, and Democrats wanting to preserve our public lands.


Yeah because all those danged Caribou hanging around the Alaska pipeline are really not there. Energy development doesn't always cause irreversible habitat destruction. Of course if you haven't managed lands before you wouldn't know that. On the other hand I did happen to manage over 100,000 acres of multi purpose land for a number of years. Somehow the wildlife didn't all die off and leave when we harvested the timber, mined the gravel and drilled for gas and oil. In fact some people remarked that the hunting improved, but that's just anecdotal of course.


----------



## backcountry

LostLouisianian said:


> paddler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you have Republicans wanting energy development at the expense of habitat, and Democrats wanting to preserve our public lands.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because all those danged Caribou hanging around the Alaska pipeline are really not there. Energy development doesn't always cause irreversible habitat destruction. Of course if you haven't managed lands before you wouldn't know that. On the other hand I did happen to manage over 100,000 acres of multi purpose land for a number of years. Somehow the wildlife didn't all die off and leave when we harvested the timber, mined the gravel and drilled for gas and oil. In fact some people remarked that the hunting improved, but that's just anecdotal of course.
Click to expand...

I have seen plenty of evidence to support a nuanced view that there are forms of energy development that can exist in a healthy ecosystem. I support such development if its thoughtful in scale, implementation and restoration. Sadly, much of the West hasn't seen such reality as a previous thread exposed about ungulate disturbance. Its made worse by the fact that wildlife management is a relatively young science and alot still needs to be learned.

So it goes.

More research is turning up some legitimate concerns about Zinke. I would say the skepticism about his benefit has legs but waiting to see if official investigations prove those legs can walk. Alot to be fleshed out about his impact on our sport and his influence on a department that has potential to foster a multi-use framework that benefits sustainable ecosystems and hunting/fishing.

Time will tell.


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> Yeah because all those danged Caribou hanging around the Alaska pipeline are really not there. Energy development doesn't always cause irreversible habitat destruction. Of course if you haven't managed lands before you wouldn't know that. On the other hand I did happen to manage over 100,000 acres of multi purpose land for a number of years. Somehow the wildlife didn't all die off and leave when we harvested the timber, mined the gravel and drilled for gas and oil. In fact some people remarked that the hunting improved, but that's just anecdotal of course.


My understanding is that sage grouse don't tolerate fragmentation of their habitat very well, and do best with little human disturbance. I suppose the question is whether allowing energy development can be as good or better than habitat preservation for threatened species like sage grouse. If you believe that, Zinke may just be your guy.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, you're showing your true colors. Anybody still optimistic?
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/...sage-grouse-habitat-including-231000-in-utah/
> 
> Don't know if anybody saw it, but the Democrats are pushing for transparency regarding Bears Ears:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ore-transparency-in-national-monument-review/
> 
> So, you have Republicans wanting energy development at the expense of habitat, and Democrats wanting to preserve our public lands. This is what I mean when I say policy drives my political affiliations, not the other way around.


1) What ya got against Kellie Anne? Smokin hot and my favorite Trump staff. She can out talk anyone! Keep it up K.A!

2) BLM rounding up horses for sage grouse. Does that make your head explode trying to figure out help birds or save horses?

3) What ya got against the Democrats demanding transgenders in national monuments? It's public lands.

4) What is the most posts you've ever posted in order before anyone got in? I'd bet 4. Moderators? Anyone know that?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> My understanding is that sage grouse don't tolerate fragmentation of their habitat very well, and do best with little human disturbance. I suppose the question is whether allowing energy development can be as good or better than habitat preservation for threatened species like sage grouse. If you believe that, Zinke may just be your guy.


You are correct in your understanding (about sage grouse). That is why you can't just spud a well where you please anymore...


----------



## paddler

Rachel Maddow talked about Zinke's travel problems last night:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...wesome-time-with-taxpayer-money-1071065155746

Also, though not Zinke per se, did anybody see that the EPA is trying to make things easier for polluters?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html

Remember Trump has already tried to make it easier to pollute our streams:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517016071/trump-aims-to-eliminate-clean-water-rule

Now our air. What's left?


----------



## paddler

Looks like Interior is up to more controversy. Thanks, Zinke, you're swell:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.52bec1c479f1


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Looks like Interior is up to more controversy. Thanks, Zinke, you're swell:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.52bec1c479f1


Congrats. 6 of last 11 posts on this threat are yours?
-O\\__-


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Congrats. 6 of last 11 posts on this threat are yours?
> -O\\__-


Just keeping score. Not sure anybody wants to thank Zinke anymore. Good to keep a close eye on him, as those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Of course, some never learn...


----------



## High Desert Elk

That darn song on the clock radio just won't change...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> That darn song on the clock radio just won't change...


Do you mean to say we should turn a blind eye to new offences committed by Zinke? Do you support building roads through wilderness areas? I'm a bit confused.


----------



## gdog

Ol Donny's coming to town. Guess he can rub wieners with Hatch, Bishop, Lee, Herbert and the rest of the posse.....

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46187932&nid=757

Trump to come to Utah to announce monument changes
October 27, 2017

SALT LAKE CITY - The White House announced Friday that President Donald Trump will come to Utah in December for his official announcement on changes to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase national monuments.

Earlier Friday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the president called him to say that he will make reductions to both monuments.

"I was incredibly grateful the president called this morning to let us know that he is approving Secretary (Ryan) Zinke's recommendation on Bears Ears," Hatch said. "We believe in the importance of protecting these sacred antiquities, but Secretary Zinke and the Trump administration rolled up their sleeves to dig in, talk to locals, talk to local tribes and find a better way to do it. We'll continue to work closely with them moving forward to ensure Utahns have a voice."

Hatch's office said Trump also agreed to follow the recommendations Zinke made on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Neither set of recommendations have been officially released with any detail.

San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams said he was excited and hopeful over the news and had heard the 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears might possibly be reduced to three smaller protected areas specifically designed to protect cultural resources.

The commission released an official statement after hearing of the phone call.

"As a commission, we are thrilled that the years of meetings, countless hours of discussion and tirelessly dedicated advocacy has resulted in our local voices being heard by President Trump and Secretary Zinke," it said. "We take heart in our shared belief that the people of San Juan will continue to take special care of these magnificent lands. This is our home, no one wants to see it protected and secure for future generations more than we do."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So what about the 52% of Utahns opposed to changing Grand Staircase at all? What about the 98% that commented during the comment period across our nation for no changes? 98% of comments in favor of monuments is more overwhelming than you will see on nearly anything......Oh yeah I forgot we are living in an Administration and Interior Department where coal sales for $2 to lease federal land and going to a National Park will soon cost you $70. This is not what the public asked for, this is what some anti-federal land Utah Republicans asked for. This is not county land, it is not state land, and 98% of those who commented solidified the fact America still embraces national monuments and wants them left alone. So far the only things Zinke and this Administration have done is full scale handing federal lands over to oil, gas, and development. The orders made to benefit hunters and anglers are nothing more than useless words on paper and good publicity. They are nothing concrete. I’ll applaud him when he’s actually done something good for conservation, wildlife, or wild places and as of now he hasn’t done a thing that actually means anything. I applaud a few of his orders, but what have they actually done? Zero.

I guess on the monument matter in particular, the fact Grand Staircase is specifically being up for coal mining is a ridiculously short sighted and faulty logic if as a hunter you approve of it or think it will be better off. Many complain about the do-gooders, roads and trash. Well get ready for semis, increased traffic, increased roads, along with all those do-gooders if it is opened to coal mining and oil drilling. Let’s just get the order signed today so it can be taken up in court as quickly as possible and this issue resolved. I am less interested in Bears Ears and want to see what the order on Grand Staircase will be, my guess..... a slap in the face to Theodore Roosevelt, the Antiquities Act, Wildlife, and future generations......but hey protecting that 1.9 million acres is just wrong and here in Utah we done got to do somethin’ bout that land just sittin der.


----------



## OriginalOscar

> Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States.


https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm

Progressive Provincial President violated the act.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm
> 
> Progressive Provincial President violated the act.


The courts will decide that and interpret it, not you or I.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The courts will decide that and interpret it, not you or I.


OO knows that. He also knows that presidents have been granted a great deal of discretion in their designations. No challenge has ever been sustained. It will be years before this issue is decided, Trump may well be gone by then.


----------



## High Desert Elk

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The courts will decide that and interpret it, not you or I.


The red text is pretty straightforward. Even a dummy grin with a pre-law degree can understand the face value for what it is...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> The red text is pretty straightforward. Even a dummy grin with a pre-law degree can understand the face value for what it is...


The courts have repeatedly sided with the President regardless of the size of designations:

*In a 2004 ruling upholding Clinton's creation of the Utah monument, Utah District Judge Dee Benson said his court did not have the authority to review the use of the Antiquities Act.

"When the president is given such a broad grant of discretion as in the Antiquities Act, the courts have no authority to determine whether the president abused his discretion," Benson wrote at the time (Land Letter, April 22, 2004)*

Dummy. Your word, not mine.;-)


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The courts will decide that and interpret it, not you or I.


Unless Congress does...


----------



## backcountry

Seemed just a matter of time before announcement like this happened. 

Disappointed to hear about the coal mining that may be opened up on the Kaparowitz. Herd numbers seem low up there but we are talking about one of the most remote locations in the lower 48 of defacto protected lands. Its an area I have always wanted to explore but get nervous with an older stock truck. Might be time to bump that trip up though in case these potential projects move forwards. 

Bears Ears...what can I say that is new? We have two worldviews that are at odds with each other and don't seem to be able to find middle ground. Anytime an issue this contentious goes to the courts the outcome is anything but certain. Both sides have their arguments and it will be up to better minds than I to decide which has more legal merit. Both sides are playing with a loaded weapon that could forever alter the playing field given the way precedence can swing against a given cause in a single heartbeat. 

Nothing to do but wait and watch. My only guess is that the arithmetic and equations behind conservation and advocacy could be radically changed in the near future.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Unless Congress does...


Yep. But if Congress does anything, if and when the Dems win a majority they will likely, I hope, undo the damage. Given computer-aided gerrymandering like what was done in Wisconsin, that may take awhile. The times we live in are a bit too interesting for my taste. I'd like to see reason, science and a sense of history and looking out for future generations take the lead in national policy.


----------



## paddler

So, I guess real science has no place in this administration. Pruitt wants to eliminate scientists who receive federal research grants. Only privately funded "scientists" will have places on EPA advisory boards:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-w...-epa-science-panels-will-appoint-new-members/

It looks like at least a couple of governors disagree with Zinke's rollback of the sage grouse plan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...05f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.438920ebf9b0


----------



## backcountry

Good to see a measured, bipartisan response from two governors interested in collaboration. I agree that is more of the approach and model we need and its a welcome sight in our current world.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Good to see a measured, bipartisan response from two governors interested in collaboration. I agree that is more of the approach and model we need and its a welcome sight in our current world.


Agreed. And a stark contrast with our Utah politicians. Sad.


----------



## High Desert Elk

From the Washington Post article:

"“As we move forward with implementation of our strategy for sage-grouse conservation, we want to make sure that we do so first and foremost in consultation with state and local governments, and in a manner that allows both wildlife and local economies to thrive,” Zinke said in that release."

"Mead said protecting endangered species has become a serious problem, citing figures that show less than 2 percent of the species protected under the act since it was passed in 1973 have recovered enough to be removed from the list.

“Now, if you care about species, or you care about energy production or you care about commerce, we’ve got to do better than that, and a collaborative process that brings in Western states on endangered species, in my mind, is the best way to go,” he said."

Sounds like it can't be one-sided, there needs to be a balance...


----------



## High Desert Elk

...and from the Salt Lake Tribune:

"“The Trump EPA’s continued attack on science will likely be one of the most lasting and damaging legacies of this administration,” said Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee that approves EPA’s funding. “Pruitt is purging expert scientists from his science boards — and replacing them with mouthpieces for big polluters.”"

Mr. Udall, well, what can I say. He doesn't purposely do much for conservation for our state, but his counterpart does...


----------



## Kwalk3

High Desert Elk said:


> ...and from the Salt Lake Tribune:
> 
> ""The Trump EPA's continued attack on science will likely be one of the most lasting and damaging legacies of this administration," said Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee that approves EPA's funding. "Pruitt is purging expert scientists from his science boards - and replacing them with mouthpieces for big polluters.""
> 
> Mr. Udall, well, what can I say. He doesn't purposely do much for conservation for our state, but his counterpart does...


Heinrich?


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> From the Washington Post article:
> 
> ""As we move forward with implementation of our strategy for sage-grouse conservation, we want to make sure that we do so first and foremost in consultation with state and local governments, and in a manner that allows both wildlife and local economies to thrive," Zinke said in that release."
> 
> "Mead said protecting endangered species has become a serious problem, citing figures that show less than 2 percent of the species protected under the act since it was passed in 1973 have recovered enough to be removed from the list.
> 
> "Now, if you care about species, or you care about energy production or you care about commerce, we've got to do better than that, and a collaborative process that brings in Western states on endangered species, in my mind, is the best way to go," he said."
> 
> Sounds like it can't be one-sided, there needs to be a balance...


The sage grouse protections were the result of a years long collaborative effort of stakeholders. Zinke nullified those efforts, and likely discouraged future similar efforts. Why work so hard for so long to come up with solutions workable for everybody if some dipwad is just going to come along later and rip it up?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> The sage grouse protections were the result of a years long collaborative effort of stakeholders. Zinke nullified those efforts, and likely discouraged futtheure similar efforts. Why work so hard for so long to come up with solutions workable for everybody if some dipwad is just going to come along later and rip it up?


I think you're speculating...where is anybody ripping anything up?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> I think you're speculating...where is anybody ripping anything up?


I think you can make an educated speculation on what's coming.


----------



## Kwalk3

HDE,

What's your opinion on Heinrich in general? I wager there are a great many issues outside the scope of this forum which I'd disagree with him about. However, he seems to be perhaps one of the biggest advocates for public land access and sportsmen in general that we have in D.C.

This is all from an outsiders POV, so I'd be curious to hear a resident's perspective as to what he does in NM to benefit sportsmen.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> I think you're speculating...where is anybody ripping anything up?


You are not paying attention.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> You are not paying attention.


Yeah, I am, so stop please...


----------



## High Desert Elk

Kwalk - just as you say, a proponent of keeping public land public and increasing access as he is a hunter himself, Udall isn't. As this is a discussion about that very topic, I cannot divulge of what I disagree with him on, economically or politically.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Yeah, I am, so stop please...


Excuse me, I assumed too much. But if you were paying attention, how did you miss this?:

*"The Interior Department has not released the full details of its planned revisions, but the agency announced in early October it would withdraw protections for about 15,600 square miles (40,000 square kilometers) of sage grouse habitat on federal lands to allow energy development."*

How's your reading comprehension? Two governors have come out in support of the 2015 sage grouse plan Zinke wants to rip up. Do you understand?


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> High Desert Elk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am, so stop please...
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, I assumed too much. But if you were paying attention, how did you miss this?:
> 
> *"The Interior Department has not released the full details of its planned revisions, but the agency announced in early October it would withdraw protections for about 15,600 square miles (40,000 square kilometers) of sage grouse habitat on federal lands to allow energy development."*
> 
> How's your reading comprehension? Two governors have come out in support of the 2015 sage grouse plan Zinke wants to rip up. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Doubling down on insults?

Yep, the DoI mentioned, in early October, removing protections for roughly 10 million acres of sage grouse territory specifically for extraction. I am wagering the two of you just differ on what that entails for habitat and management, which is the context I saw in the "rip it up" comment. I understand HDE's perspective to be that extraction is compatible with it's habitat requirements. It appears you don't. Its a division that existed even during the Obama planning process, given the number of states that are resisting.

I don't need to agree with HDE to recognize the condenscending attitude you have used isn't helping with a divisive issue. Mods have shown you and others leniency in this thread already. Maybe show some restraint.

I need to read up more on the issue. Sad to admit my memory on the sage grouse is pretty general at this point, ie forgot more than I remember.


----------



## High Desert Elk

By an area of 15,600 mi^2, if it's 125 X 125 miles (sqrt of 15600) I'd say you were right on the carelessness of it. I'd wager though that it's checkerboard parcels and tracts of land in areas that maybe "habitat" because of it's adjacency to known habitat. I doubt they'd get too far in ignoring or "ripping up" protected areas known to be frequented by sage hens.

Also, making acreage available to development does not mean a wellpad (if that's the development being talked about) every 200'. Directional drilling has come a long way, even Hickenlooper and Mead know that...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> By an area of 15,600 mi^2, if it's 125 X 125 miles (sqrt of 15600) I'd say you were right on the carelessness of it. I'd wager though that it's checkerboard parcels and tracts of land in areas that maybe "habitat" because of it's adjacency to known habitat. I doubt they'd get too far in ignoring or "ripping up" protected areas known to be frequented by sage hens.
> 
> Also, making acreage available to development does not mean a wellpad (if that's the development being talked about) every 200'. Directional drilling has come a long way, even Hickenlooper and Mead know that...


I believe you are missing the point. The 2015 sage grouse plan was hammered out in good faith with all stakeholders participating to both attempt to protect the sage grouse and prevent listing it as endangered. It was a long, thoughtful process and collaborative in nature. Zinke wants to void the agreement. No need to wager anything. The Trump administration is unceasingly undermining conservation efforts and environmental regulations in numerous ways for the sole benefit of energy developers and to the detriment of wildlife, habitat, the environment and the land that we all, as citizens, own. Zinke is an eager participant. When you negate a long negotiated agreement as he plans to do to in this instance, you undermine the credibility of the Interior Department and discourage future efforts for people to come together, work together for the benefit of the environment, wildlife, and indeed, all Americans.


----------



## High Desert Elk

So who (which state) has to pay the price for power, fuel, energy, economic support? Who will volunteer to reduce consumption of power, energy, fuel, economic support? Somebody has to to keep from the advancement of development. No, I'm not missing the point, the opinion is that wreckless behavior is around the corner and "Dick Cheney incarnate" is on the loose. I also know that nothing is free.

Can't be one sided all the time, everyone's interest has to give and take. Having been in industry for several years, I can promise you that just because an area is open to development does not mean development runs amok. There will be COA's involved.

I would like to read the decision that the sage hen has been delisted, because there will be supporting evidence showing they are thriving and where a federal judge will not block it.

Maybe it will be easier to just say yep Paddler, you're right. There should be in no way any reason to disrupt the tranquility of any public land for anything that invloves development of any natural resource. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go jump into my 4x4, drive up a road to a trailhead, lace up my hunting boots with rubber souls, and go scout for some elk on some "undisturbed" public land...


----------



## backcountry

Could someone clarify for me, the Sage Grouse wasn't listed after a 2015 USFWS review, correct? It had been on the candidate list and the agency found the species's populations had stabalized enough to make a listing unwarranted, correct?

If so, the question is whether or not the interstate efforts currently being dismantled were responsible for such a positive change. If they are, what effect will the current plans of deregulating the habitat have on the Sage Grouse population and keeping it off the ESA listing, ie something every state should prefer.

I agree with HDE that the rhetoric surrounding extraction is often hyperbolic and overblown. Its normally PR sound bites for aggressive environmental groups. Clearly they see a purpose in such tone and content but my experience is it often falls apart when you read the details. That said, does anyone have access to data and analysis for the acreage being discussed? Its difficult to keep up with all the details and find non-partisan sources.

I do agree with, Paddler, that it can be destructive to unilaterally change the agreements of a collaborative effort that was years in the making. The compromises in such agreements are rarely perfect but that type of mediation fosters a different outcome than what the current Administration is making (PS, fully aware the previous admin did similar in other issues). But how are we to create sustainable, meaningful change for species and habitat that cross so many states boundaries if we don't honor such collaboration?

We as a country struggle finding sustainable balance between our energy and conservation demands. I have guesses on how this current redirection might throw that back out of whack and also fear the "equal and opposite" response when we have a different party in power in 3-11 years. How do we get out of this cycle?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> Could someone clarify for me, the Sage Grouse wasn't listed after a 2015 USFWS review, correct? It had been on the candidate list and the agency found the species's populations had stabalized enough to make a listing unwarranted, correct?
> 
> If so, the question is whether or not the interstate efforts currently being dismantled were responsible for such a positive change. If they are, what effect will the current plans of deregulating the habitat have on the Sage Grouse population and keeping it off the ESA listing, ie something every state should prefer.
> 
> I agree with HDE that the rhetoric surrounding extraction is often hyperbolic and overblown. Its normally PR sound bites for aggressive environmental groups. Clearly they see a purpose in such tone and content but my experience is it often falls apart when you read the details. That said, does anyone have access to data and analysis for the acreage being discussed? Its difficult to keep up with all the details and find non-partisan sources.
> 
> I do agree with, Paddler, that it can be destructive to unilaterally change the agreements of a collaborative effort that was years in the making. The compromises in such agreements are rarely perfect but that type of mediation fosters a different outcome than what the current Administration is making (PS, fully aware the previous admin did similar in other issues). But how are we to create sustainable, meaningful change for species and habitat that cross so many states boundaries if we don't honor such collaboration?
> 
> We as a country struggle finding sustainable balance between our energy and conservation demands. I have guesses on how this current redirection might throw that back out of whack and also fear the "equal and opposite" response when we have a different party in power in 3-11 years. How do we get out of this cycle?


Yes, the sage grouse was deemed unwarranted, but a huge reason why they weren't listed was because the last administration put faith that these plans would be carried out. Now that they are being looked at being altered or dismantled or shoved aside, that makes a listing much more likely because one of the main reasons the bird wasn't listed was because of these plans. This has to do with yet again, hard right Utah politicians unwilling to compromise even if it comes back to haunt you in the end. The anvil will swing back even harder at some point in the other direction, and the current trend in politics is very concerning on both sides. No compromise, just see how far you can swing the anvil until it swings back. This is people like Rob Bishop we are talking about complaining, I mean come on, he is no friend to wildlife, public lands, and conservation. If these plans are broken because a few whiny uncompromising politicians choose to push them to be broken open again it will alter the process in the future and end up getting the sage grouse closer to a listing. There is no reason to break open these plans again, they were a truly great way to compromise and meet in the middle. Now they deserve a chance to work, they were barely beginning to be implemented. If Rob Bishop is unhappy with a conservation measure, 95% of the time you're doing something right.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Then what's the problem with "ripping it up" if that in turn will only guarantee the listing thereby protecting it [habitat] indefinitely?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> Then what's the problem with "ripping it up" if that in turn will only guarantee the listing thereby protecting it [habitat] indefinitely?


Because who wants to see them listed? Not me. It doesn't guarantee a listing, but makes it more likely moving forward. I enjoy hunting sage grouse, and more importantly the things that share the sage grouse habitat. The sage grouse plans were essentially good faith and compromise by the last administration and now this administration is moving toward trashing parts of these plans that are really the very reason it wasn't listed. The negative affects of a listing are not at all what I want to see. There is a middle ground and these plans are it. A listing is the opposite end of what this Administration is moving forward with. We need some mineral development without any doubt, but we also need conservation and wise use to extract those minerals.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> Then what's the problem with "ripping it up" if that in turn will only guarantee the listing thereby protecting it [habitat] indefinitely?


I understand the sentiment but I think what you are saying is a cure worse than the disease.

As a fan of the ESA, I would much rather see proactive efforts before listing than reactive and more aggressive actions after listing. I think that is what many consider the spirit of the plan that is now being abandoned. And I think most folks familiar with the ESA process no how hard it is to delist now given the contentious nature of it and the way politics has entered the arena. The science often gets lost in the sea of banter.

Wildlife habitat is already so fragmented that I would hate to take the approach you highlight even if it is the likely outcome now. Tough situation but I think fighting for collaboration and compromise just seems to lead to better long term outcomes. Though we are clearly seeing how different folks define "collaboration" and "compromise".

Hope your hunt goes well, HDE.


----------



## High Desert Elk

No development and keep intact the compromise, no listing. Development and destroying the compromise will [may] trigger a listing, which in turn will hurt or stop development.

I fail to see where Zinke and company have to gain...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> No development and keep intact the compromise, no listing. Development and destroying the compromise will [may] trigger a listing, which in turn will hurt or stop development.
> 
> I fail to see where Zinke and company have to gain...


You may be giving them too much credit. Or maybe they think they can get rid of the ESA as well.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Ridding the ESA is an act of Congress, literally. Good luck with that. Heinrich and Udall from my state would fight that tooth and nail along with all the Dems including some RINO's and there are some very powerful lobby groups supporting it.

They wouldn't have the votes.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> No development and keep intact the compromise, no listing. Development and destroying the compromise will [may] trigger a listing, which in turn will hurt or stop development.
> 
> I fail to see where Zinke and company have to gain...


I guess it will all depend on the changes they make, but their record from the last 9 months that heavily favors industry and development does not make me feel like that is where we are going. You have faith they wouldn't do something as stupid as tear up these compromises and open up crucial habitat to development, I don't have that same faith. I think they are all about short term gain despite the fact the next administration, whether that be in 4 or 8 years, will list the bird if these plans are torn up or are changed in a big way. The sage grouse plans and compromise were a process and success story of collaboration like we have not seen before, and now because a few hard line, anti-conservation, anti-federal land, anti-wildlife politicians like Rob Bishop want them changed it will all be for not if they are significantly altered.

At that point, in the future there will be no reason to collaborate successfully like this again, and we will just play political football by the changing of an Administration and each side will just run as far and as hard their way as they possibly can before the other team gets the ball back. Here's the thing.....the other team is going to get the ball back, so when they list the bird and they are pointing at the sage grouse plans that were thrown aside, I don't want to hear any complaining from Orrin Hatch(in his 90th year in congress or something close to that) and others who had the chance to let some collaborative plans work and chose instead to push this Administration to tear them up.


----------



## Kwalk3

High Desert Elk said:


> No development and keep intact the compromise, no listing. Development and destroying the compromise will [may] trigger a listing, which in turn will hurt or stop development.
> 
> I fail to see where Zinke and company have to gain...


I agree with this. Seems strange. I think that is partially why Governor Mead is perplexed as well. The great thing about the compromise is that it still allows for extraction and development, with some limitations. Governor Mead relies heavily on the continued ability to extract resources from lands in Wyoming for the welfare of his state. I think he recognizes the conundrum you are referencing.

The plan appears to have been a true compromise where no side got everything they wanted. I remember some of the enviro-crowd claiming that the protection plan didn't do enough, and i'm sure there were some extraction industry folks, and the Utah and Idaho delegations, that thought it was overly restrictive.

Re-opening the discussion on a collaborative process that included all stakeholders reeks of exactly the kind of bureaucratic overreach that those in the pro-PLT camp use as one of the justifications for state control. It also provides a disincentive to actually collaborate to find a solution in the future.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Here's a KSL poll on the monuments issue, it appears yet again, in another poll, shrinking Grand staircase and even Bears Ears is not a settled argument and is not even the will of the majority of Utahns, let alone the 98% of Americans that commented during the review period. Polls done by every source have shown essentially the same thing. It's about half and half on Bears Ears and around 60% oppose shrinking Grand Staircase in Utah. As I post this the poll shows 53% oppose shrinking either monument and 56% do not support shrinking Grand Staircase. 
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46194159&n...-think-utahs-national-monuments-should-shrink


----------



## Huge29

The will of the people...kind of hard to quote the same polls where there was not overwhelming, or even a majority of support for the monument to begin with. Kind of the problem with a single person's executive action. Kind of logically criticize the same executive action that can modify the size.
I just keep coming back to one thing. I do agree with the designation, this area clearly meets the criteria. However, consider the size of about 1.3mm acres, being over double that of all 5 of our national parks...the monument isnt even contiguous land, It take a huge piece on the east side of Glen Canyon NR completely separate from the area mostly east of Blanding. The way it was done is a bit illogical.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Huge29 said:


> The will of the people...kind of hard to quote the same polls where there was not overwhelming, or even a majority of support for the monument to begin with. Kind of the problem with a single person's executive action. Kind of logically criticize the same executive action that can modify the size.
> I just keep coming back to one thing. I do agree with the designation, this area clearly meets the criteria. However, consider the size of about 1.3mm acres, being over double that of all 5 of our national parks...the monument isnt even contiguous land, It take a huge piece on the east side of Glen Canyon NR completely separate from the area mostly east of Blanding. The way it was done is a bit illogical.


Like I said Bears Ears has been about a 50/50 split the entire time, Grand Staircase being shrunk has been about 60% oppose shrinking it. The lie I have a problem with is there is overwhelming support to do away with these two monuments and there is no support for them, it simply isn't true not in Utah, and especially not outside of Utah. As for the size, I'm done debating that, as I've said many times now, we will see what the courts say about the power granted to the President at his discretion.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Huge29 said:


> I do agree with the designation, this area clearly meets the criteria.


The entire Southwest and most of the Rocky Mtn region meets the criteria. There are sacred mountains all over the place...


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Like I said Bears Ears has been about a 50/50 split the entire time, Grand Staircase being shrunk has been about 60% oppose shrinking it. The lie I have a problem with is there is overwhelming support to do away with these two monuments and there is no support for them, it simply isn't true not in Utah, and especially not outside of Utah. As for the size, I'm done debating that, as I've said many times now, we will see what the courts say about the power granted to the President at his discretion.


This is federal land, and opposition to shrinking the monument ran 98% nationally during the comment period. This is not a state issue. It's nice that the majority of Utahns oppose shrinking them, but also completely irrelevant. Utah's public opinion on the matter should carry no more weight than the opinions of any other US citizen. Our local, small-minded politicians need to get over it. They have no legal standing here, just as there is no statutory basis for action Trump is contemplating. We aren't a Banana republic, nobody is above the law.


----------



## High Desert Elk

So, that 98% is almost nearly every adult in the US, or just the 1,000 or so surveyed in a certain demographic to get the desired result?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddler said:


> This is federal land, and opposition to shrinking the monument ran 98% nationally during the comment period. This is not a state issue. It's nice that the majority of Utahns oppose shrinking them, but also completely irrelevant. Utah's public opinion on the matter should carry no more weight than the opinions of any other US citizen. Our local, small-minded politicians need to get over it. They have no legal standing here, just as there is no statutory basis for action Trump is contemplating. We aren't a Banana republic, nobody is above the law.


paddler, I don't exactly agree with you on this. I agree that these lands are the entire nations lands, but I would like to see Utahn's have a little more weight on our public lands than those outside our state. That does not mean I don't think everyone in the nation has the right to help decide how to manage our public lands, but people who live in Utah I would like to see have a voice as well. That being said, I completely agree that 98% is an overwhelming number and to attempt to shrink/modify our national monuments when they have such overwhelming support is not right, especially when that is compounded with the fact that its a 50/50 issue on BE and a 60/40 issue with GS. The KSL poll is now at 57% disagree with shrinking either monument, and 60% disagree with shrinking Grand Staircase. This is not a scientific poll but basically matches up with polls conducted by different sources in the state. Shrinking Bears Ears and Grand Staircase are against the will of what the people of Utah, and overwhelming majority of people outside of Utah want. Personally I wish Trump would get on with this, lets get it to court and get it resolved.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> So, that 98% is almost nearly every adult in the US, or just the 1,000 or so surveyed in a certain demographic to get the desired result?


The comment period was open for a reasonable period of time and was open to any member of the public that wanted to comment on it. This was not a survey this was the public comment period put on by the Department of Interior where anyone could submit their comments. Zinkes own report stated that 98% of comments from the public were in favor of leaving national monuments alone. It was not a specific demographic. It was open to all 320+ million Americans to comment.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Ok, so again, what was the sample size? 2000 comments made out of a potential 320+ MM? 1960 in favor and 40 opposed...?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> Ok, so again, what was the sample size? 2000 comments made out of a potential 320+ MM? 1960 in favor and 40 opposed...?


Over 2.4 million comments were submitted, 98% of which opposed changing current national monuments. It was open to 100% of the American public to comment. You have no real argument here. Over 1.2 million comments is a large sample size on this issue, and 98% is an even more convincing figure.

So more than 2,352,000 people opposed changing our National monuments, 48,000 comments supported it. Seems pretty overwhelming to me.

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinke-sends-monument-report-white-house


----------



## High Desert Elk

DEER - wasn't trying to argue ANY point or even make one as you assumed. Just asking what the real number was in opposition. 2.4 MM people is a lot (not even sure where the 1.2 MM came from??) - the population of some western states. Saying 98% are opposed to changing the size(s) is somewhat misleading though.

The portion of the entire US population that commented: 2.4/330 = 0.73% tells me either not enough people know or care...


----------



## High Desert Elk

HOWEVER, let's get back to the original post that started this whole fiasco. I recieved this via email today from Martin Heinrich:

"_November 9, 2017

Dear Friend,

I am proud to announce that New Mexico sportsmen will finally be able to access the stunning landscapes in the Sabinoso Wilderness. Located on just over 16,000 acres in San Miguel County, in between Las Vegas and Mosquero, the Sabinoso Wilderness, which was designated in 2009, is home to a variety of wildlife, including mule deer, elk, and wild turkey. Its dramatic landscape includes the 1,000-foot tall Canyon Largo and striking rock formations. Up until now, the Sabinoso's narrow mesas, rugged canyons, and spectacular grasslands were the only legally inaccessible wilderness area in the entire nation. Surrounded by private land and without a legal road or trail to get there, the public was effectively locked out of this stunning landscape that we all own.

Last year, I welcomed the announcement that the Wilderness Land Trust purchased a 4,176-acre property neighboring the Sabinoso, with the purpose of donating the land to the Bureau of Land Management. The donated property includes a legal road easement allowing access to the edge of Largo Canyon and by extension the entire Sabinoso Wilderness. The only step that was needed to complete the deal was agreement from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to add this land to the existing wilderness and create the new public access route.

Through my role on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I called on Secretary Zinke to accept this donation and open up the Sabinoso. In June, I invited him to come visit the community and hear directly from New Mexicans about the overwhelming public benefits of acquiring this land. Over a weekend in July, Secretary Zinke joined Senator Tom Udall and me on a horseback ride into Canyon Largo with local sportsmen, public land advocates, and community leaders who worked for years to find a way to open up the Sabinoso.

After he saw the landscape in person and witnessed the overwhelming local support, *I'm grateful that Secretary Zinke* has done the right thing and agreed to the proposal to unlock the Sabinoso Wilderness. Now that the public will be able to access this incredible place, it will surely become an important destination for hunters, hikers, and campers from nearby communities and around the nation.

New visitors drawn to the Sabinoso will shop in local stores, fill up at gas stations, hire local outfitter guides, spend the night in nearby hotels, and eat at local restaurants. Outdoor traditions like hunting, hiking, camping and fishing are an integral part of our way of life in New Mexico, and they support a thriving outdoor recreation economy that supports 99,000 jobs and generates $9.9 billion of consumer spending in New Mexico each year. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has found that hunters and anglers alone generate more than $613 million in annual consumer spending in our state.

I'm dedicated to ensuring our kids and grandkids can learn the joys of catching fish and chasing mule deer on all of our public lands. If we work to conserve our natural resources and open up public access, New Mexicans will continue to enjoy the benefits of the public lands we all own and love.

Sincerely,
_
Signature

MARTIN HEINRICH
United States Senator"


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> DEER - wasn't trying to argue ANY point or even make one as you assumed. Just asking what the real number was in opposition. 2.4 MM people is a lot (not even sure where the 1.2 MM came from??) - the population of some western states. Saying 98% are opposed to changing the size(s) is somewhat misleading though.
> 
> The portion of the entire US population that commented: 2.4/330 = 0.73% tells me either not enough people know or care...


Right HDE, but that sounds with everything we make decisions on. It's no different than the voting booth, not everyone votes. As for the 1.2 million, I belive it came from comments made specifically on the comment webpage whereas the DOI got comment via mail, email, etc. as well. 98% is simply what the comments say, is that a perfect number? Nope, but there is passion on both sides of this argument, and I saw the comment period advertised on several different media sources, Facebook pages, forums, and news sites. It seems to me that every poll taken scientific or not, shows even Utahns do not support the idea of shrinking Grand Staircase for sure, and Bears Ears is even not settled in a state where its politicians are ignoring 50% of their constituents. If you listen to any politician in this state you would think it was 99% hate GS and BE and 1% of radical enviros are the only ones that support it. That's simply not true. These are our nations lands and future generations lands. 98% is a little misleading probably, but it's also overwhelming. It leaves no question that a large majority of Americans support our National Monuments as they currently stand and so do a majority of Utahns.

As for your second post, kudos to Zinke on that one. He has done some good as well.


----------



## paddler

So, do you mean local input like this? If so, I agree:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...-keeping-grand-staircase-escalante-protected/

To sum up, I think it's important to understand the motivation behind Zinke's review. Trump ordered it out of petty jealousy of his predecessor, part of a systematic attempt to erase Obama's legacy. Given his penchant for lying and his narcissitic personality disorder, we must look askance at all of his actions. This one is just another example. What is that old saying? "By their fruits ye shall know them."


----------



## OriginalOscar

Leaders who actually perform service. Thank you VP Pence and Secretary Zinke
http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...-day-cleaning-the-vietnam-wall-praising-vets/


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> Leaders who actually perform service. Thank you VP Pence and Secretary Zinke
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...-day-cleaning-the-vietnam-wall-praising-vets/


Not that this has anything to do with the conversation at hand, but yes it's good to see and kudos to them for doing this, I applaud their service and for doing this. But OO, doesn't mean I put on the blinders on other issues or things he does. He can be a good man that does good things and also be screwing over conservation and wildlife from his post as well. 2 things can be true at once.


----------



## High Desert Elk

#1DEER 1-I said:


> ...doesn't mean I put on the blinders on other issues or things he does. He can be a good man that does good things and also be screwing over conservation and wildlife from his post as well. 2 things can be true at once.


Kind of like a president at the turn of the century...?


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Leaders who actually perform service. Thank you VP Pence and Secretary Zinke
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...-day-cleaning-the-vietnam-wall-praising-vets/


That's a nice gesture/photo op. Nothing to do with the way he's screwing up public land policy, though. Zero points.



High Desert Elk said:


> Kind of like a president at the turn of the century...?


Not sure what you mean by that. Clarification?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> That's a nice gesture/photo op. Nothing to do with the way he's screwing up public land policy, though. Zero points.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that. Clarification?


[Almost] the exact opposite - the father of hunting/conservation. Kudos for the public land initiative, but not so much on some other policies.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> [Almost] the exact opposite - the father of hunting/conservation. Kudos for the public land initiative, but not so much on some other policies.


Agreed, and he also went up against the same type of people who didn't want public lands set aside, who wanted nothing to do with setting aside places for conservation(monuments), wanted unfettered access to our resources, and didn't want to clean up their mess. Today's events parallel much of what happened back then. Was everything perfect? No, but nothing anyone does is perfect including the current Administration. However, what he did for conservation and our current generation has had a greater beneficial impact for us and our way of life than any President ever has or ever will.PS- I realize you agree with me on this so don't take this post as too pointed. It's honorable that Zinke has served this country and I have nothing but respect and thanks to him for that and things like OO posted above. I applaud the orders he's signed for access for hunters and fishermen, not all he's done is bad and I in no way think he is a bad person. That being said this Administration and Zinke have done NOTHING in regards to conservation, wildlife habitat, wise stewardship, or forward thinking. It has been development, development, development. Let's open pebble mine, let's drill on wildlife refuges, let's throw out sage grouse conservation plans, let's scrap the clean water rule, lets weaken and shrink National Monuments, let's drill and mine every inch of public lands. What the hell good are the access declarations he's signed if they are torn up with roads, pads, and coal trucks? There is a legitimate argument that the last Administration was too restrictive and too hands off. There is just as legitimate of an argument that this Administration is terrible for conersvation, terrible for wildlife habitat, and far to on the side of industry. Middle ground is where we can strike balance but Zinke and this Administration are far less willing to engage in compromise than the last Secretary of the Interior IMO.


----------



## paddler

Looks like they want to significantly reduce both GS and BE. Thank you so much, Zinke, Trump, et al. There's going to be a long list of repairs for our next competent administration. I'm disgusted.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...t-will-be-pruned-by-half-hatch-official-says/

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...-to-trump-erase-bears-ears-8-other-monuments/

http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...n-and-bryce-combined-says-interior-secretary/


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Thank you so much, Zinke, Trump, et al.


Agreed


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Ridding the ESA is an act of Congress, literally. Good luck with that. Heinrich and Udall from my state would fight that tooth and nail along with all the Dems including some RINO's and there are some very powerful lobby groups supporting it.
> 
> They wouldn't have the votes.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-hes-getting-close/?utm_term=.1d217026a271

Maybe you spoke too soon. The ESA will be gutted if Bishop gets his way. What a DB. I'm sure Trump will sign anything put in front of him. Like most things these days, it will be decided along party lines.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> High Desert Elk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridding the ESA is an act of Congress, literally. Good luck with that. Heinrich and Udall from my state would fight that tooth and nail along with all the Dems including some RINO's and there are some very powerful lobby groups supporting it.
> 
> They wouldn't have the votes.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-hes-getting-close/?utm_term=.1d217026a271
> 
> Maybe you spoke too soon. The ESA will be gutted if Bishop gets his way. What a DB. I'm sure Trump will sign anything put in front of him. Like most things these days, it will be decided along party lines.
Click to expand...

We have seen failure on such bills already this year with public input. Its a long road from committee to presidential signature and I am not positive that Congress will expend its limited political capital on a well-respected wildlife law a year before mid-term elections. Just look at how Trump delayed his recent decision on elephant trophies to see how they respond to specific pressures.

It could happen but the article is 2 weeks old and Congress only has 3 more weeks of work before the session ends. Uphill battle in a tense, divided majority.


----------



## backcountry

PS...if Trump announces such a drastic reduction to GSENM then he deserves every bit of condemnation he gets in December.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> We have seen failure on such bills already this year with public input. Its a long road from committee to presidential signature and I am not positive that Congress will expend its limited political capital on a well-respected wildlife law a year before mid-term elections. Just look at how Trump delayed his recent decision on elephant trophies to see how they respond to specific pressures.
> 
> It could happen but the article is 2 weeks old and Congress only has 3 more weeks of work before the session ends. Uphill battle in a tense, divided majority.


Yep, I agree. There's another article in the Trib on topic this morning. Bishop is an embarrassment. I'm really tired of his crap and wouldn't put anything past him. Or Congress.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Here's a map of what the county apparently wants

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...-redrawn-grand-straircase-escalante-monument/

If this is anywhere near what the land are for Grand Staircase, I just have to say it is sad, short sighted, and one of the least necessary acts of the current Administration....and there's been a lot of them.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Here's a map of what the county apparently wants
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/environm...-redrawn-grand-straircase-escalante-monument/
> 
> If this is anywhere near what the land are for Grand Staircase, I just have to say it is sad, short sighted, and one of the least necessary acts of the current Administration....*and there's been a lot of them.*


Agreed. Like just about everything they've done or tried to do.


----------



## backcountry

Less than a week away.


----------



## paddler

So, I an't believe I missed this. Thanks, Zinke.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.6edd36c0bfc6


----------



## Vanilla

You know people are grasping at straws when they have to take the time to focus on stuff like this to form their criticism.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> You know people are grasping at straws when they have to take the time to focus on stuff like this to form their criticism.


No, I have plenty of grounds to criticize Zinke. The flag thing is just weird, amusing even. I could see it as a display of transparency, but he's not. What a tool.


----------



## Kwalk3

I think there is plenty to criticize Zinke about, but vanilla is correct. Even bringing this into the conversation is just silly.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> I think there is plenty to criticize Zinke about, but vanilla is correct. Even bringing this into the conversation is just silly.


You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I think mentioning it here is nowhere near as silly as requiring your staff to go hoist and lower a flag to mark your comings and goings. Arrogance? Exaggerated sense of self-importance? Speaks to a pattern of behavior, which he demonstrated by calling legitimate concerns about his misuses of taxpayer dollars "bullsh*t". The Department of the Interior isn't a military installation, and he's not the Queen of England. I think he could maybe send out tweets if he really wanted to announce his presence in his office, odds are he'd reach more people than can see or care about his silly flags.

And it's not, as stated by his press secretary, an attempt at transparency. He blew any clam to that during his Bears Ears review. Ask the tribes. And if he really wanted his actions to be transparent, he'd have been more open about why he delayed signing off on an Indian casino in order to benefit MGM:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/01/zinkes-indian-casino-interior-312671

Patterns of behavior occur and persist for a reason. Don't ignore the small stuff. If you do, pretty soon you'll elect some DB as president who wants to parade tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Patterns of behavior occur and persist for a reason.


Trust us, you've shown that in your posts repeatedly.



paddler said:


> Don't ignore the small stuff.


We're not.


----------



## Kwalk3

This thread had kinda turned into a paddler talking to himself thread. Maybe we should have left it that way. 

Keep on keepin' on paddler.


----------



## High Desert Elk

This thread started out as a kudos to Zinke for being involved in opening up thousands of acres of public ground in NM creating hunting, fishing, and any other outdoor activity further.

Now, it has become the nonsensical ramblings of some guy who wants to turn (or has turned) it into a political bashing thread anything Zinke (and Trump). This same pattern and behavior crops up often in other threads as well.


----------



## Dunkem

This thread is 6 months old since beginning, Getting OLD!!!


----------



## wyogoob

*3 mo years, max*



Dunkem said:


> This thread is 6 months old since beginning, Getting OLD!!!


Hey, this thread http://utahwildlife.net/forum/26-recipes/15220-sausage-recipes.html is 101 months old. Lots of weiner heads on that thread too.

.


----------



## wyogoob

*12,022 UWN members, 34 are Liberals*



Kwalk3 said:


> This thread had kinda turned into a paddler talking to himself thread. ................................
> 
> ...................


Is that bad? Geeze, I do that all the time.

.


----------



## Dunkem

wyogoob said:


> Hey, this thread http://utahwildlife.net/forum/26-recipes/15220-sausage-recipes.html is 101 months old. Lots of weiner heads on that thread too.
> 
> .


Well this one has just about the same amount of bologna.:mrgreen:


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46257565

Thank you, Secretary Zinke. This is great news.


----------



## grizzly

Vanilla said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46257565
> 
> Thank you, Secretary Zinke. This is great news.


I am optimistic and hopeful. I read the actual order and it is thin on details but when money is allocated towards big game, it is typically with good intentions.

Are these Pittman-Robertson funds?


----------



## Catherder

Yeah, this sounds like a great move. I don't think anyone in the hunting community can grumble about this. Happy to see this! 


Now, in a possible example of good Zinke/bad Zinke, I read somewhere that in the same set of directives, he lowered the charge of AUM's assessed to public lands ranchers from about $1.68 to $1.41 per head. Considering that the fees assessed are already considerably lower than private land grazing costs, one could argue that is quite a subsidy. Disclaimer though, I haven't confirmed this.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> Yeah, this sounds like a great move. I don't think anyone in the hunting community can grumble about this.


(Paddler stands up and says, "Hold my beer.")


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> (Paddler stands up and says, "Hold my beer.")


LMAO :rotfl:


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> (Paddler stands up and says, "Hold my beer.")


I don't trust Zinke in the least. Sounds like the money is Pittman-Robertson funds, which has been always been allocated to state wildlife agencies since the inception of the Act in 1938. So, is Zinke grandstanding again for simply doing his job? That's my take on the event that precipitated this thread.

I'll sit on my hands until the dust settles. Questions to ask are whether his order means more money than would otherwise will flow to states, whether it results in a change in projects already planned by state agencies, etc. Recommending using the best available science would imply wildlife professionals aren't currently doing so. Seems unlikely. I'll take the long view, and hold onto my own beer, thanks. Anybody seen his flag?


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> I don't trust Zinke in the least. Sounds like the money is Pittman-Robertson funds, which has been always been allocated to state wildlife agencies since the inception of the Act in 1938. So, is Zinke grandstanding again for simply doing his job? That's my take on the event that precipitated this thread.
> 
> I'll sit on my hands until the dust settles. Questions to ask are whether his order means more money than would otherwise will flow to states, whether it results in a change in projects already planned by state agencies, etc. Recommending using the best available science would imply wildlife professionals aren't currently doing so. Seems unlikely. I'll take the long view, and hold onto my own beer, thanks. Anybody seen his flag?


This is a move that was advocated for by Cameron Hanes in a face to face meeting with the Secretary in January with the guidance and help of some good folks at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. TRCP is doing good work preserving public lands and sportsmen's access to them. That IS what we all want right?

See TRCP's blurb about the order here and note that the next article down on the same page is one that is critical of the new BLM energy leasing protocols, lest you would accuse TRCP of being in the tank for Zinke.

http://www.trcp.org/2018/02/09/new-...effort-conserve-big-game-migration-corridors/

It is possible for a reasonable person to be mostly disappointed with Secretary Zinke, and yet still be willing to accept that not everything(or anything) he does is with the intent to burn the country to the ground. I, myself, am fairly disappointed with Zinke overall, but am happy to see this move.

Cut out the hyperbole and the overt partisan talking points. Analyze each action, and realize that even though you may disagree vehemently with many things the Secretary has done, it's not all bad. This one seems good.

Additionally, conflating a silly flag and other partisan nonsense with this individual action isn't helpful to the discussion.

It doesn't matter if the funding is Pittman-Robertson or comes from somewhere else. Funding is being channeled to improve migration corridors via a Secretarial Order for species many of us value. That is a good thing.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> This is a move that was advocated for by Cameron Hanes in a face to face meeting with the Secretary in January with the guidance and help of some good folks at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. TRCP is doing good work preserving public lands and sportsmen's access to them. That IS what we all want right?
> 
> See TRCP's blurb about the order here and note that the next article down on the same page is one that is critical of the new BLM energy leasing protocols, lest you would accuse TRCP of being in the tank for Zinke.
> 
> http://www.trcp.org/2018/02/09/new-...effort-conserve-big-game-migration-corridors/
> 
> It is possible for a reasonable person to be mostly disappointed with Secretary Zinke, and yet still be willing to accept that not everything(or anything) he does is with the intent to burn the country to the ground. I, myself, am fairly disappointed with Zinke overall, but am happy to see this move.
> 
> Cut out the hyperbole and the overt partisan talking points. Analyze each action, and realize that even though you may disagree vehemently with many things the Secretary has done, it's not all bad. This one seems good.
> 
> Additionally, conflating a silly flag and other partisan nonsense with this individual action isn't helpful to the discussion.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the funding is Pittman-Robertson or comes from somewhere else. Funding is being channeled to improve migration corridors via a Secretarial Order for species many of us value. That is a good thing.


Thanks for your misinterpretation and unsolicited advice. Keep it to yourself. I'm saying I'll wait and see. No hyperbole, just watching and waiting. Not partisanship, either, I just don't trust Zinke in light of his monuments actions. It appears he accepted guidance from TRCP in this matter. If that's true, TRCP deserves the lion's share of the credit, Zinke just said OK. Regarding the funding, it appears to be Pittman-Robertson money. It came from sportsmen like you and I, and has ALWAYS gone to state wildlife agencies. It's not like he went out and lobbied for extra money. Why should we give him extra credit for following the Act?

Again, analyze each action, then we'll see. I remain skeptical, as it seems to me most of the things he's come up with himself have been negative. I'm not saying everything he does is evil, but he hasn't moved the needle with this order.

Oh, and his silly flag isn't a partisan issue. Anybody of any party who requires his staff to run up or take down a flag to announce his comings and goings in this day and age is a tool. Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Again, analyze each action, then we'll see. I remain skeptical, as it seems to me most of the things he's come up with himself have been negative. I'm not saying everything he does is evil, but he hasn't moved the needle with this order.


Text exchange with my daughter who I love greatly and is learning to look at cause and outcome.

"My paycheck was more today and in the details it looks like less federal money was taken out? Was this Trump tax cut"?

"Yes honey"

"Well I'll be damned. Trump did something positive".

Come on Paddler give props where props are deserved.


----------



## Springville Shooter

paddler said:


> Thanks for your misinterpretation and unsolicited advice. Keep it to yourself.


#everythingpaddlerhaseverpostedonUWN

Pretty bold words for a guy who posts so much vitriol and empty political partisan crap. Yet no one is telling you to shut up? Maybe a common courtesy pill is in order? Eh doc?---SS


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Text exchange with my daughter who I love greatly and is learning to look at cause and outcome.
> 
> "My paycheck was more today and in the details it looks like less federal money was taken out? Was this Trump tax cut"?
> 
> "Yes honey"
> 
> "Well I'll be damned. Trump did something positive".
> 
> Come on Paddler give props where props are deserved.


I guess it depends on if you think the tax cut is a positive thing. The vast majority of the benefit go to the very wealthy, with crumbs to the middle class, all the while increasing the debt by $1 trillion. We should be thanking your daughter, she'll be paying the bill. I thought Republicans were the party of fiscal conservatism?


----------



## backcountry

Springville Shooter said:


> paddler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your misinterpretation and unsolicited advice. Keep it to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> #everythingpaddlerhaseverpostedonUWN
> 
> Pretty bold words for a guy who posts so much vitriol and empty political partisan crap. Yet no one is telling you to shut up? Maybe a common courtesy pill is in order? Eh doc?---SS
Click to expand...

^This

I thought Kwalk3's post was spot on.

I need to read into the order more but it sounds like it should be a respectable one. Willing to give Zinke credit when it's due.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> I guess it depends on if you think the tax cut is a positive thing. The vast majority of the benefit go to the very wealthy, with crumbs to the middle class, all the while increasing the debt by $1 trillion. We should be thanking your daughter, she'll be paying the bill. I thought Republicans were the party of fiscal conservatism?


I'll take yours so you will have a clear conscience


----------



## Huge29

This one has so clearly gone so far beyond anything related to the purpose of the forum and more into the not allowed column now, do we just need to shut it down now or just allow a peaceful death?


----------



## paddler

Huge29 said:


> This one has so clearly gone so far beyond anything related to the purpose of the forum and more into the not allowed column now, do we just need to shut it down now or just allow a peaceful death?


Except for a tangent here and there, it seems to be sticking pretty close to the original topic. Healthy discussion about whether or not we should thank Zinke for his actions. I think it's valuable to read other viewpoints, and don't think shutting it down is necessary. It'll fade away all by itself.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Thanks for your misinterpretation and unsolicited advice. Keep it to yourself.


Followed by this:



paddler said:


> I Thinks it's valuable to read other view points


My work here is done.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Thanks for your misinterpretation and unsolicited advice. Keep it to yourself. I'm saying I'll wait and see. No hyperbole, just watching and waiting. Not partisanship, either, I just don't trust Zinke in light of his monuments actions. It appears he accepted guidance from TRCP in this matter. If that's true, TRCP deserves the lion's share of the credit, Zinke just said OK. Regarding the funding, it appears to be Pittman-Robertson money. It came from sportsmen like you and I, and has ALWAYS gone to state wildlife agencies. It's not like he went out and lobbied for extra money. Why should we give him extra credit for following the Act?
> 
> Again, analyze each action, then we'll see. I remain skeptical, as it seems to me most of the things he's come up with himself have been negative. I'm not saying everything he does is evil, but he hasn't moved the needle with this order.
> 
> Oh, and his silly flag isn't a partisan issue. Anybody of any party who requires his staff to run up or take down a flag to announce his comings and goings in this day and age is a tool. Just my opinion, of course.


:roll:


----------



## Huge29

paddler said:


> Except for a tangent here and there, it seems to be sticking pretty close to the original topic. Healthy discussion about whether or not we should thank Zinke for his actions. I think it's valuable to read other viewpoints, and don't think shutting it down is necessary. It'll fade away all by itself.


I can live with that. My bigger concern are the sharply worded replies that usually take the discussion downward.
More importantly, I don't want this to overtake the poop thread as the longest running thread in the history of the forum, we have standards here!


----------



## Dunkem

Poop thread? Did I miss something?:shock:


----------



## paddler

Huge29 said:


> I can live with that. My bigger concern are the sharply worded replies that usually take the discussion downward.
> More importantly, I don't want this to overtake the poop thread as the longest running thread in the history of the forum, we have standards here!


Just be thankful that politics is prohibited. Talk about poop threads.


----------



## wyogoob

*WTF*



Huge29 said:


> I can live with that. My bigger concern are the sharply worded replies that usually take the discussion downward.
> More importantly, I don't want this to overtake the poop thread as the longest running thread in the history of the forum, we have standards here!


Are there rules for how long a thread can run?

I'm in trouble.

.


----------



## wyogoob

Gawd, I just read the last 10 pages of this thread. Cut my wrists, please. 

This is more of a Ford/Chevy thing now and if we don't get this thread back to an outdoor-related discussion I'm going to lock it down.

.


----------



## Catherder

wyogoob said:


> Are there rules for how long a thread can run?
> 
> I'm in trouble.
> 
> .


That would be it for the sausage and mushroom threads. Those are two of my favorites. :shock:

I don't remember the poop thread either. Was that the thread that is the *first* d*&ndest thread on UWN? -Ov-


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Good order by Zinke, and good on the organizations that helped make it happen. You can do good and bad things, not just one or the other.


----------



## High Desert Elk

So, Zinke made statements in his address at the expo speaking to being opposed to buying and selling federal land. Seems fairly conservation and public land public minded to me.

Where does the fear mongering come from? The UT state legislature and other federal elected representatives maybe...?


----------



## middlefork

High Desert Elk said:


> So, Zinke made statements in his address at the expo speaking to being opposed to buying and selling federal land. Seems fairly conservation and public land public minded to me.
> 
> Where does the fear mongering come from? The UT state legislature and other federal elected representatives maybe...?


There is a pretty good Thread going over on MM that may shed light on your question. Grizzly spells it out pretty well.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/24728.html


----------



## paddler

I just saw on MSNBC that Zinke may get fired. Wouldn't be the first, or likely, the last.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Zinke must've served his purpose. Only a good 'ol boy system keeps dead weight around...


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> I just saw on MSNBC that Zinke may get fired. Wouldn't be the first, or likely, the last.


Does this mean he won't get a highway named after him?


----------



## paddler

No highway for Zinke, but he made the Post:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comm...ank-all-hail-ryan-zinke-our-imperial-viceroy/


----------



## paddler

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being a staunch supporter of conservation and preservstion of our public lands. Who cares about a little cyanide in our groundwater? See the story in the Trib this morning.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-montana-miner-violated-bad-actor-law-53882548

The hits just keep coming.


----------



## backcountry

Confused. The linked story doesn't mention Zinke or the Interior at all. What am I missing?


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Confused. The linked story doesn't mention Zinke or the Interior at all. What am I missing?


Yes, I know. It was in the Washington Post and I couldn't provide the link. I read it in the Trib this morning, but was unable to link to it, either. It basically said Zinke had a 21 second conversation in which he apologized to the Hecla guy over environmental regulations, "one behalf of the American people". I'll try to find the link when I have more time. Check Wapo and the Trib.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confused. The linked story doesn't mention Zinke or the Interior at all. What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. It was in the Washington Post and I couldn't provide the link. I read it in the Trib this morning, but was unable to link to it, either. It basically said Zinke had a 21 second conversation in which he apologized to the Hecla guy over environmental regulations, "one behalf of the American people". I'll try to find the link when I have more time. Check Wapo and the Trib.
Click to expand...

Thx for clarifying. WaPo firewall can suck. For some reason they handed out free 6 month online subscriptions on Amazon so I'll check it out.


----------



## paddler

See if this works:

http://boisestatepublicradio.org/po...ets-apology-interior-secretary-zinke#stream/0

I misquoted Zinke. He said, "On behalf of the United States government, we apologize". Now the DOI says Zinke was joking. Polluting our land and water is pretty funny, no?


----------



## RandomElk16

I'm not saying that article isn't accurate.. but being a fan of the 2A - I choose to ignore anything that originates in The Washington Post.


----------



## paddler

RandomElk16 said:


> I'm not saying that article isn't accurate.. but being a fan of the 2A - I choose to ignore anything that originates in The Washington Post.


Sorry, I don't see the connection.


----------



## paddler

So, Zinke graduated 34 years ago with a degree in geology. Apparently, he fancies himself a geologist. Real geologists disagree. Also, the ethics people in Interior say that if the reason behind his charter flight were known it "could have been avoided". This guy is pretty arrogant. Thanks, Secretary!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ologist-thats-a-job-hes-never-held/ar-AAvYkdr


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> This guy is pretty arrogant.


Mirror


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Sorry, I don't see the connection.


He takes anything from the Washington [com]Post with a grain of salt...


----------



## paddler

*More Great News From Zinke*

BLM banned archaeologists from attending a major scientific conference last month. Who needs scientists at a scientific conference, anyway, especially if it might interfere with energy development?:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...-from-speaking-at-a-major-science-conference/

Thank you Zinke, Trump, et al. You rock.


----------



## High Desert Elk

That poor, poor dead horse...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> That poor, poor dead horse...


I think every new misdeed deserves recognition. While it's true this administration has gutted environmental protections and is awash in corruption and scandal, it's important to not become numb to all the BS. In this instance, the American Southwest has a great many archaeological sites and artifacts, so to exclude staff BLM archaeologists from the Society for American Archaeology meeting where they were to lead a symposium on "Tough Issues in Land Management Archaeology" simply reinforces the fact that this administration's approach is "Drill, Baby, Drill". Archaeological treasures and the environment be damned.


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...hunting-and-fishing-opportunities-30-americas

This may not mesh with where some (or one) has attempted to take this thread, but it seems to fit the intent of the original post. Bravo, Secretary Zinke.


----------



## paddler

Good op-ed in the Trib today by Eric Ewert about our monuments. Talks in part about how facts don't matter much to many these days.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Talks in part about how facts don't matter much to many these days.


Ain't that the flippin' truth!!!???


----------



## fobit

Monuments benefit very few Americans. Like granola chewers in spandex who believe in Gaia. Oil brings a civilized lifestyle, lower mortality, less manual labor, light in the dark, heat when it is cold and air conditioning in hot weather. Our lifesaving medical system does not function without oil. Neither does our transportation system.
I have hunted deer near oil wells, the deer don’t seem to be bothered much. But if those granola chewers get their way, all hunting will be banned in national monuments.


----------



## Kwalk3

fobit said:


> Monuments benefit very few Americans. Like granola chewers in spandex who believe in Gaia. Oil brings a civilized lifestyle, lower mortality, less manual labor, light in the dark, heat when it is cold and air conditioning in hot weather. Our lifesaving medical system does not function without oil. Neither does our transportation system.
> I have hunted deer near oil wells, the deer don't seem to be bothered much. But if those granola chewers get their way, all hunting will be banned in national monuments.


I hid behind a gas shack on blm land in NE Wyoming and had a group of pronghorn 5 yards away from me.

That means that oil and gas are only good for hunting.

That's how this works right?

Nevermind the recent peer-reviewed studies showing the negative effects on some big game species.

This kind of discourse isn't very helpful overall.....from either side.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Sounds like this fellow doesn't feel any gratitude toward Zinke. Once again, he favors commercial interests over wildlife.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/y...th-trump-administration/ar-AAymRMt?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## paddler

*Just More Ethics Problems*

Zinke, like the rest of the administration, continues with ethical problems. Thanks, Mr. Secretary:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/6224...rior-secretary-zinkes-link-with-oil-executive


----------



## Catherder

Paddler, you are falling down on the job. No mention of this story?

http://kutv.com/news/local/canadian-firm-makes-mining-claim-on-former-grand-staircase-escalante-land

This potentially is far more important to us as sportsmen than Zinkes moral shortcomings, real and perceived.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Paddler, you are falling down on the job. No mention of this story?
> 
> http://kutv.com/news/local/canadian-firm-makes-mining-claim-on-former-grand-staircase-escalante-land
> 
> This potentially is far more important to us as sportsmen than Zinkes moral shortcomings, real and perceived.


It's hard to keep up with all the crap this administration is pulling. Here's another:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/busines...oised-to-produce-oil-and-actually-make-money/

Drill, baby, drill.

Anybody still think Zinke deserves a "Thank you"?


----------



## Bax*

Catherder said:


> Paddler, you are falling down on the job. No mention of this story?
> 
> http://kutv.com/news/local/canadian-firm-makes-mining-claim-on-former-grand-staircase-escalante-land
> 
> This potentially is far more important to us as sportsmen than Zinkes moral shortcomings, real and perceived.


Has anyone ever been out to Colt Mesa area before? I have spent a ton of time on the Monument and don't believe I have ever heard of this before today. It looks like it is closer to Boulder than Escalante and is in a pretty remote area.

It appears that the best way to reach it is off of Wolverine Loop Rd off the Burr Trail.


----------



## ZEKESMAN

Bax* said:


> Has anyone ever been out to Colt Mesa area before? I have spent a ton of time on the Monument and don't believe I have ever heard of this before today. It looks like it is closer to Boulder than Escalante and is in a pretty remote area.
> 
> It appears that the best way to reach it is off of Wolverine Loop Rd off the Burr Trail.


If they can make enough money, they can build a new road. Vic


----------



## Bax*

They wont build a new road. But they may improve the existing roads to support what I imagine to be substantially more heavy equipment that will be brought in.


----------



## Vanilla

Where was paddler when Zinke was opening opportunities for hunters and fishermen on public lands?

Oh wait, paddler doesn’t support that. He advocates restricting access for hunters on public lands. 

Some of us know your history, paddler. Just remember that.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I beleive that is what started this thread and then it was derailed, hijacked, Shanghai'd, whatever you want to call it.

Now it's about monuments, particularly GS and BE. It should've been buried months ago...


----------



## paddler

This thread has evolved into an evaluation of the sum of Zinke's actions, which is fair. We should evaluate our "public servants" on the entirety of their actions. We can agree to disagree in regard to to impact of Zinke's actions; ie, the self-dealing, lack of transparency, the favoring of development over conservation, reduction of monuments, the misuse of our tax dollars, the arrogance, etc, and come to our own conclusions as to whether or not he's worthy of our gratitude.


----------



## paddler

*Mitt Thanks Zinke*

Mitt has an oped in the Trib this morning in which he says he backs the administration's "restoring" our public lands to "multiple use". Meaning he agrees with shrinking BE and GS. A vote for Mitt is a vote for exploiting rather than conserving our public lands. Nice.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Multiple use is the whole point to both Public and Heritage lands...


----------



## paddler

*BLM Tweaked Report*

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/07/24/monument-report-showed/

This administration must be the most corrupt in memory. They have no integrity, honest, or respect for public lands. This is just the latest example. If you read the article, the only reported congressional criticism comes from the ranking Democrat in the Senate Energy Committee, Maria Cantwell, from Washington. No surprise. Where are our congressional representatives? I'd like to know who spiked the initial report. What does Zinke have to say about this?


----------



## fobit

If there are national monuments hunters are not locked out of, that is a temporary condition. Remember Yellowstone when it was first created was a hunters paradise. 
If we give the anti's everything they want, fishing will be banned too. Perhaps they will introduce piranha to control the fish population.


----------



## paddler

"Multiple Use" means exploitation over all other uses, including hunting, fishing, preservation, wildlife and all other forms of recreation. Thanks, Secretary Zinke:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/07/30/trumps-drive-energy/


----------



## High Desert Elk

The Tribune is hardly a credible source to define anything, usually full of opinion as most journalism in a hurry is...


----------



## Vanilla

I’m not using one of my 10 free articles this month on a Zinke hack job.


----------



## PBH

Q: What's the best way to get rid of a Monument in Utah?




A: turn it into a National Park!






that there is funny.


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> Q: What's the best way to get rid of a Monument in Utah?
> 
> A: turn it into a National Park!
> 
> that there is funny.


Not that funny, and very historically accurate.

On a side note, I think I now know the pattern of posting on this thread. This article explains all.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/

It shouldn't be hard to figure out who the "right" trolls and "left" trolls are. ;-)

TOTP


----------



## PBH

Catherder said:


> Not that funny, and very historically accurate.
> 
> TOTP


Especially when it's exactly what we asked for...
:-|


----------



## paddler

PBH said:


> Q: What's the best way to get rid of a Monument in Utah?
> 
> A: turn it into a National Park!
> 
> that there is funny.


Wrong, especially in the last couple of years. The correct response is elect Republicans. They hate anything that limits exploitation.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagley/2018/07/31/bagley-cartoon-wilderness/


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Not that funny, and very historically accurate.
> 
> On a side note, I think I now know the pattern of posting on this thread. This article explains all.
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/
> 
> It shouldn't be hard to figure out who the "right" trolls and "left" trolls are. ;-)
> 
> TOTP


Catherder, the article does nothing of the sort. Both the Right Trolls and the Left Trolls originated in the IRA out of St Petersburg as part of the Russian effort to interfere with our elections. Here we have real people posting their respective positions and beliefs, which is not remotely similar.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Way to go Ryan! How 'bout them republicans!

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...ead-work-together-conserve-big-game-migration


----------



## Vanilla

High Desert Elk said:


> https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...ead-work-together-conserve-big-game-migration


Bravo! I like it. Back to the original purpose of this thread: Thank you, Secretary Zinke.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> Catherder, the article does nothing of the sort. Both the Right Trolls and the Left Trolls originated in the IRA out of St Petersburg as part of the Russian effort to interfere with our elections. Here we have real people posting their respective positions and beliefs, which is not remotely similar.


Heh,heh. I am fully aware of what the article discusses, especially considering I posted it. :-? I am pretty sure that most of us here are real people but I am not so sure about a couple of your extreme right wing antagonists. And for that matter, didn't *you* post a picture of a Baikal teal on here, comrade?

Do you guys know for sure if *I'm* not a Russian troll too? -BaHa!--BaHa!- (I could be the new IRA moderate troll ;-) )


----------



## middlefork

http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2...by-jim-stiles/


----------



## High Desert Elk

Koo


middlefork said:


> http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2...by-jim-stiles/


Couldn't agree more!!

Edit: link opened as an internet "end of the road" link. Thought it was a suggestion to end this thread once and for all. My bad...


----------



## Catherder

middlefork said:


> http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2...by-jim-stiles/


Link doesn't work for me. Can you paraphrase?


----------



## middlefork

Take it or Leave it: MEDIA BIAS: UP CLOSE & LOCAL, Part 1 (CNN’s Spin on Bears Ears NM)…by Jim Stiles
by stiles • August 1, 2018 •

"One of the most far-reaching and expensive coast-to-coast marketing campaigns ever promoted by the powerful outdoor industry and their allies in the mainstream environmental community clearly contributed to the decision by President Obama to create the monument in the last days of his administration. Obama’s interior secretary, Sally Jewell, had previously served as CEO of REI, Inc, one of the largest outdoor retailers in the world.

(Jewell’s predecessor, Ken Salazar, promised Utahns in 2011 that monument designation was not being considered by the Obama administration.)

Those two forces came together to sell an agenda to the American Public and the mainstream media, from the national level to the local, often became a willing mouthpiece for that agenda. It became an un-debated, unchallenged “fact” that only monument status could save the area from rampant and imminent destruction from the energy industry and archaeological looters."


----------



## Catherder

middlefork said:


> Take it or Leave it: MEDIA BIAS: UP CLOSE & LOCAL, Part 1 (CNN's Spin on Bears Ears NM)&#8230;by Jim Stiles
> by stiles • August 1, 2018 •
> 
> "One of the most far-reaching and expensive coast-to-coast marketing campaigns ever promoted by the powerful outdoor industry and their allies in the mainstream environmental community clearly contributed to the decision by President Obama to create the monument in the last days of his administration. Obama's interior secretary, Sally Jewell, had previously served as CEO of REI, Inc, one of the largest outdoor retailers in the world.
> 
> (Jewell's predecessor, Ken Salazar, promised Utahns in 2011 that monument designation was not being considered by the Obama administration.)
> 
> Those two forces came together to sell an agenda to the American Public and the mainstream media, from the national level to the local, often became a willing mouthpiece for that agenda. It became an un-debated, unchallenged "fact" that only monument status could save the area from rampant and imminent destruction from the energy industry and archaeological looters."


Thanks. All I would say is that the "powerful" outdoors industry is doing the same things the "powerful" energy and mining industries were/are also doing during the entire Bears Ears/GSENM process, just allied with different political benefactors. Their actions make them no more or no less evil than their opponents.


----------



## middlefork

Maybe this link will work.

http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/...t-1-cnns-spin-on-bears-ears-nm-by-jim-stiles/

He also addresses the energy and mining industries and the protections that were in place before any designation.
And I think it is interesting that this is written by a person who used to sit on the SUWA board of directors.


----------



## middlefork

Maybe this link will work.

http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/...t-1-cnns-spin-on-bears-ears-nm-by-jim-stiles/

He also addresses the energy and mining industries and the protections that were in place before any designation.
And I think it is interesting that this is written by a person who used to sit on the SUWA board of directors.


----------



## Catherder

Yes, that link worked fine. 


The bulk of what the author talked about was bias in the CNN story and I would imagine he is correct. In the current era of hyperpartisanship, this seems par for the course. However, the left does not have a monopoly on that means of operation. Which is kind of sad if you want to really learn about an issue and not just get self affirmation from the partisan news outlet one favors. 


As I have mentioned a few times in our numerous "monument" threads, BE and GSENM are no longer just spots on a map with local issues relating to them, but are now "proxy wars" for the ideologues on both the right and the left for their long term visions of how these types of lands should be dealt with. (and especially for not letting the other side "win", to he&* with the consequences of achieving "victory")


----------



## paddler

We were talking about all the fires tonight at work, one of the staff mentioned the Carr fire near Redding, California. I was reminded of Whiskeytown Dam, and mentioned that I was there in September of 1963 when President Kennedy dedicated it. I pulled up his remarks from that day. He mentioned the great conservationists, Pinchot, Roosevelt, and his Interior Secretary, Stewart Udall. What struck me about his speech was the vision, intelligence and eloquence. Here it is:

*My old colleague and your distinguished Congressman, "Bizz" Johnson, Governor Brown, Senator Regan, Assemblywoman Davis, Secretary Udall, Senator Bible, Mr. Engle, representing Clair, Larry Carr, Judge Carter, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate the chance to be here in Whiskeytown and to say a few words in this distinguished community.

I was reminded, when I read my itinerary, of a poem by Stephen Vincent Benet called "American Names," and he started it off:
I have fallen in love with American names,
The sharp names that never get fat,
The snakeskin-titles of mining-claims,
The plumed war-bonnet of Medicine Hat,
Tucson and Deadwood and Lost Mule Flat.

Then he goes on to talk about some famous American names, not Whiskeytown, but I think he could add it to the roster, because the name of this community tells a good deal about the early beginnings of this State and country.

I have come across the United States in the last 5 days, starting at Milford, Pa., which was the home of Gifford Pinchot, who was, with Theodore Roosevelt, the first great conservationist in this country. Imagine how small their country was, how few the people, and yet how dangerous it was in the early part of this century. How great was that danger, that this great natural inheritance of ours given to us by nature, given to us by God, would be wiped away, the forests ruined, the streams destroyed, wasted for the people, water going to the sea unused. And because of the dedicated work of men actually who did not come from this part of the country, who came from the East-Pinchot, Theodore Roosevelt, and later Franklin Roosevelt--this great national effort was made to realize our resources, to make them useful. And all of you who are here today in the State of California are here because of the wise decisions that were made by those who came before, and the wise decisions that you are making now.

When you support the effort which Governor Brown described--to set aside funds for a bond issue for recreation--it may not come before you immediately, but it will make it possible for your children to live better. This country is changing. We had a 58-hour week, a 48-hour week, a 40-hour week. As machines take more and more of the jobs of men, we are going to find the workweek reduced, and we are going to find people wondering what they should do. I want to make it possible, and you do--make it possible for them to see green grass, to travel throughout this great, rich country of ours, not just in other parts of the world, but here in the United States, where I have seen parts of this country which are second to none, to any in the world, and where too many people east of the Mississippi are unaware of what golden resources we have in our own United States.

So we should use them. Water should be used. Land west of the 100th parallel was never regarded as fertile until some days after the Civil War a few men began to come out here and made determinations of what could be done. And we have moved ahead, and this project is only the most recent. I am proud of it. It was opposed for many years. Many people wondered whether it would ever pay for itself.

The fact of the matter is, as a general rule, every time we bet on the future of this country we win. The day before yesterday I was at the Grand Coulee Dam. Ten years they fought for the Grand Coulee Dam. Finally it was built. It will pay for itself in another 5 or 6 years. But more important than that, it has meant the development of that whole section of the high Northwest, the development of the atomic reactors, which have played such a significant part in maintaining the security of the United States.

Every time we make a determination to set aside a seashore for the use of future generations, every time we build these great projects, we develop the water resources, we set aside recreational areas, we can be sure they are going to be used. Three hundred and fifty million Americans will live in this country of ours in the short space of less than 40 years, where now there are 180 million. What will they do? What kind of a country will they find? How much recreation will be possible for them? I think if we make the right decisions now they will be as grateful to us as we were and are to Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt for the things they did 45 and 50 years ago.

We witness today the completion of a project which symbolizes the goals to which we are committed. The Whiskeytown Reservoir is not the largest structure on the Trinity River, but its completion is significant because this is the last of the Trinity project dams. The impoundment part of this vast undertaking is now completed, and in that sense this dam stands not only as the work of the men who built it, but of all the men over the years who fought for it and brought it to the attention of the State and Nation.

With the Trinity division completed and the upper reaches of the Sacramento now harnessed, Shasta County and its neighbors are assured of water and power. They can enjoy new chances for recreational use, and new access to open space. And of great portance, the flow of two watersheds can now be regulated for the benefit of the farms and cities in the lower valley. For too long this water ran unused to the sea. For too long surplus water in one area was wasted, while there was a deficit nearby. Now, by diverting these waters to the eastern slope, we can irrigate crops on the fertile plains of the Sacramento Valley and supply water also for municipal and industrial use to the cities to the south.

And while running their course, these waters will generate millions of kilowatts of energy and help expand the economy of the fastest growing State in the Nation. In these ways, Whiskeytown Reservoir and the Trinity division will add to our natural beauty and will show that man can improve on nature, and make it possible for this State to continue to grow. So I congratulate all of you.

I wonder how many people realize in the Eastern United States, where I come from, what a great national asset we have. This is not just California. This is one country, 50 separate States but one country. And people move very freely from east to west and west to east. I wonder how many people here today were born in the State of California. Would they hold up their hands? And how many were not born in California? It shows that what we are doing--we are a mobile, moving country. Our national assets belong to all of us. Children who were born in the East will grow up in the West, and those born in the West will grow up in the East. And we will find by concentrating our energies on our national resources, on conserving them, but not merely conserving and saving them, but by developing and improving them, the United States will be richer and stronger. We can fulfill our responsibilities to ourselves and those who depend upon us.

I am proud to be here. I am proud to be associated with those who are contributing to this country, who are making it better, not merely right now, today, but who are looking to the long future of those who come after us.
I congratulate you on what you have done.
Thank you.

*


----------



## OriginalOscar

TLDNR - Point?


----------



## stillhunterman

OriginalOscar said:


> TLDNR - Point?


Really? Another TLDNR? You must have the attention span of a humming bird, or simply not really care enough about the particular subject you are 'reading' about to spend the short time it takes to read or listen to something pertinent. Not being an azz, just making an observation...for the second time.-O,-


----------



## OriginalOscar

stillhunterman said:


> Really? Another TLDNR? You must have the attention span of a humming bird, or simply not really care enough about the particular subject you are 'reading' about to spend the short time it takes to read or listen to something pertinent. Not being an azz, just making an observation...for the second time.-O,-


2146 posts you can't help yourself I get it. 378 posts in this thread and Paddlers is probably over 50% of them. A concise point alludes!


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> 2146 posts you can't help yourself I get it. 378 posts in this thread and Paddlers is probably over 50% of them. A concise point alludes!


OO, you don't want to read it. It talks about great conservationists of days gone by, and of leaving the world a better place for our children. And the speech itself is an example of eloquence, intelligence, of forward thinking, looking ahead into the future, realizing that we are mere caretakers of the world today. It really has nothing to do with exploitation, of marring permanently our public lands for short term gains. And the message isn't one of divisiveness, or bigotry, or name calling, or attacking the media, or anything like that. I don't think it would strike a responsive chord in you. Don't bother.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> And the message isn't one of divisiveness, or bigotry, or name calling, or attacking the media, or anything like that.





paddler said:


> I don't think it would strike a responsive chord in you. Don't bother.


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you....paddler.


----------



## Dunkem

Well this thread just had its first birthday, 1 year of the same old stuff---


----------



## paddler

Zinke and the administration continue their efforts to exploit our public lands. The hits just keep rolling in. Looks like they may be improving roads into the area even though the reduction in the monuments is the subject of litigation. The road improvements from my reading may not be related to extraction, but this warrants vigilance. In my view, nothing should happen before the courts settle the matter. Watch this space:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/03/senate-democrats-say-new/

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!


----------



## Catherder

Which emoticon works best here? This; -^*^*^*- or -O\\__- ?


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Which emoticon works best here? This; -^*^*^*- or -O\\__- ?


Well, there are two options. You can choose to ignore every new assault on our public lands, as they are numerous and continuing to the point of fatigue, or you can call out each new outrageous act. You can say it's just Zinke doing the bidding of the extractive industries, or you can stand up and say that no, this is not okay, that we will challenge you in court and in the arena of public opinion. In my opinion, we're not beating a dead horse. I intend to stay informed and stand up for public lands, wildlife, clean air and water.


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46375497

Even Al Gore thinks you're a drama queen.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I think the fires lately have caused more reason for "dirty air" than extraction ever has...

And no, paddler, "fracking" didn't cause the fires.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46375497
> 
> Even Al Gore thinks you're a drama queen.


Not exactly, V. I briefly scanned the article. For those who have not, Gore said that Trump hasn't been able to damage the environment as much as he'd feared. Some of Trump's actions in this regard have been blocked by the courts, mistakes have delayed others, and Congress has also stepped in.

Notably, however, neither Gore nor anybody else has said that Trump is interested in protecting our environment, of leaving the planet a better place for our children and their children. And that, in my opinion, is the take home message. This administration, and that includes Zinke, has been characterized as a blend of malevolence and incompetence. His malevolent actions against the environment have been stymied, in some cases, by his incompetence. That's not cause for celebration, and your post was a willful mischaracterization of Gore's message.


----------



## Bax*

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46376675&n...issues-proposals-for-downsized-utah-monuments

"The Bureau of Land Management listed four options for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, saying the energy and mining option is its top preference."


----------



## High Desert Elk

By energy you know that means solar and wind, right...?


----------



## Bax*

High Desert Elk said:


> By energy you know that means solar and wind, right...?


I assumed fission &#129325;


----------



## High Desert Elk

Bax* said:


> I assumed fission &#129325;


Now it makes sense! Only the Chinese have that kind of technology.

Better brush up on your Mandarin...


----------



## Bax*

High Desert Elk said:


> Now it makes sense! Only the Chinese have that kind of technology.
> 
> Better brush up on your Mandarin...


Stupid auto correct. I meant "fishin' "


----------



## Critter

And here I thought that we were going to start talking the flux capacitor.


----------



## Bax*

Critter said:


> And here I thought that we were going to start talking the flux capacitor.


1.21 gigawatts!

Here, take a look at this Critter: https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/1...ffiliates&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_source=cj


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> By energy you know that means solar and wind, right...?


So, are you implying that they reduced the monuments so they could install wind turbines and and solar farms? Cool story, bro.

The reduction has always been about mining and energy extraction, doing the exploiter's will, and, of course, Trump's sick obsession with eliminating all he possibly can of Obama's legacy. He somehow thinks diminishing that legacy will make him look better, when all it does it demonstrate his pettiness, well-founded insecurity, stupidity and pathological narcissism. And our public lands pay the price.


----------



## Vanilla

Be mad at Gore, not me. He’s the one that thinks you’re a drama queen. I just think (know) that you’re an idiot.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> So, are you implying that they reduced the monuments so they could install wind turbines and and solar farms? Cool story, bro....
> 
> ...And our public lands pay the price.


Actually, figured it fell in step with the 20 something wind turbines just outside of Monticello, aka, the very doorstep of BENM.

What an eyesore...


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/17/interior-secretary/

Here is a Tribune article about this topic that paddler didn't post. I wonder why? We'll probably never know...

Thanks again, Secretary Zinke!


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/17/interior-secretary/
> 
> Here is a Tribune article about this topic that paddler didn't post. I wonder why? We'll probably never know...
> 
> Thanks again, Secretary Zinke!


Well, V, glad you asked. I read it maybe 20 minutes ago, so haven't had much time. I was also confident that somebody else would post it up, either you, OO, HDE, etc.

I support Zinke in this, it was the right thing to do. However, let's keep this in perspective and recall the history here. Zinke is the one who put these parcels at risk in the first place. Congratulating him for withdrawing those lands is much like applauding Michael Jackson for not dropping his baby off the balcony. Thanks, Mikey, er, Ryan.


----------



## Vanilla

Secretary Zinke, while not perfect and has done things I do not agree with, has done infinitely more to protect public lands and help hunters than you have. I once read that “by their fruits he shall know them.” I’ll put his fruits up against yours any day, sir.


----------



## fobit

paddler said:


> Trump's sick obsession with eliminating all he possibly can of Obama's legacy.
> He somehow thinks diminishing that legacy will make him look better, when all it does it demonstrate his pettiness, well-founded insecurity, stupidity and pathological narcissism. And our public lands pay the price.


As long as the President undoes the damage Baraq did to our country and our children's future, I will remember him as the greatest president in my lifetime. 
The fact that we will have energy to continue living civilized lives is just a bonus.
How long do you think it would be before those monuments were posted "No Hunting"?
(In hope a few people will read this before the mods delete it. Unfounded criticisms of our president seems to be O.K. but pointing out the obvious failure of a lib is unacceptable.)


----------



## paddler

fobit said:


> As long as the President undoes the damage Baraq did to our country and our children's future, I will remember him as the greatest president in my lifetime.
> The fact that we will have energy to continue living civilized lives is just a bonus.
> How long do you think it would be before those monuments were posted "No Hunting"?
> (In hope a few people will read this before the mods delete it. Unfounded criticisms of our president seems to be O.K. but pointing out the obvious failure of a lib is unacceptable.)


Is this what you mean by protecting our children's future?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...ons-of-co2-into-the-air/ar-BBM5MAU?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## Vanilla

Swing and a miss. Again.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Is this what you mean by protecting our children's future?
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...ons-of-co2-into-the-air/ar-BBM5MAU?li=BBnb7Kz


Yep, it's what gives us the ability to debate highly intellectual concepts right here on a good 'ol internet forum.

Dang, you guys have been busy. I take one day off to do a shoulder mount for my wife's oryx and this thread gets lively!


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Yep, it's what gives us the ability to debate highly intellectual concepts right here on a good 'ol internet forum.
> 
> Dang, you guys have been busy. I take one day off to do a shoulder mount for my wife's oryx and this thread gets lively!


Yep, thank goodness for Trump's plan to reverse Obama's Clean Power Plan, thus saving our planet from certain destruction. Our children will thank us for that, along with defiling our public lands:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2018/08/19/tribune-editorial-plans/


----------



## High Desert Elk

Do you really think the Clean Power Plan would really have an affect on the rest of the world? Hardly. And thinking a monument is the only thing to keep antiquities safe is a fairy tale. Pillaging cultural sites on public land is a felony no matter what. If you think tens of thousands of acres of wind and solar farms isn't defiling, then don't know what to tell you.

We've been over this already...


----------



## Vanilla

HDE, don’t confuse him with facts.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Do you really think the Clean Power Plan would really have an *effect* on the rest of the world? Hardly. And thinking a monument is the only thing to keep antiquities safe is a fairy tale. Pillaging cultural sites on public land is a felony no matter what.
> 
> We've been over this already...


So, are you saying that the Clean Power Plan is a bad idea? Is anthropogenic climate change real? Do you not think we should everything we can to reduce it? Your argument is ridiculous on its face. And yes, I think there is hope that we can have an impact on global warming, and set an example for the world.

Defile means many things, I meant it not only as pillaging of artifacts but also scarring, degrading and spoiling the land through extraction activities.

And yes, we have covered this before. As I said, it's important to recognize each new assault on our public lands and environment perpetrated by this administration. The announcement of Trump's new plan is expected this week, the latest but certainly not the last assault. Stay tuned.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Clean power is not a bad idea, just not the fairy tale of wind and solar to keep the grid stable.

By the way, I used the word _*affect*_ correctly...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> By the way, I used the word _*affect*_ correctly...


Are you sure about that?

Also, I'm not sure I understand why you would speak against the Clean Power Plan if you think is a good thing.


----------



## Huge29

I thought this horse was beaten to no recognizable parts 6 months ago, even the maggots have been obliterated now, what did I miss other than the misuse of affect/effect?
Since this has to be way off the rails, my bigger pet peeve is further/farther, 90% of the time people should use farther, but further is the default. 
Farther means to a distance while further means to a degree or non physical reference. I ran way farther than Paddler. Paddler if you want to discuss this further we will talk tomorrow. There you have it.


----------



## paddler

Huge29 said:


> I thought this horse was beaten to no recognizable parts 6 months ago, even the maggots have been obliterated now, what did I miss other than the misuse of affect/effect?
> Since this has to be way off the rails, my bigger pet peeve is further/farther, 90% of the time people should use farther, but further is the default.
> Farther means to a distance while further means to a degree or non physical reference. I ran way farther than Paddler. Paddler if you want to discuss this further we will talk tomorrow. There you have it.


How far did you run, Huge? I used to run a fair amount, now only 4-5 miles at a time. I agree about grammar, another example is there/their/they're.

I disagree about the horse, though. It is alive and will remain so long as Zinke and this administration launch new attacks on our public lands and the environment. To paraphrase Churchill, "Do not despair, do not yield, never, never, never give up." He also said, "Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man." Great advice.


----------



## Bax*

My sig line.


----------



## Catherder

Huge29 said:


> I thought this horse was beaten to no recognizable parts 6 months ago, even the maggots have been obliterated now, what did I miss other than the misuse of affect/effect?


Not much. At this point, the interesting parts of the thread are almost unrecognizable due to the effects of partisanship affecting the main participants in such a way that further discussion seems a waste of time as the thread goes farther afield.

I do think that this thread may give "when is it going to start" a run for the money for the longest thread by the time Zinke and/or Trump are out of office.


----------



## Dunkem

paddler said:


> How far did you run, Huge? I used to run a fair amount, now only 4-5 miles at a time. I agree about grammar, another example is there/their/they're.
> 
> I disagree about the horse, though. It is alive and will remain so long as Zinke and this administration launch new attacks on our public lands and the environment. To paraphrase Churchill, "Do not despair, do not yield, never, never, never give up." He also said, "Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man." Great advice.


Uh, how about if you lose a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Not much. At this point, the interesting parts of the thread are almost unrecognizable due to the effects of partisanship affecting the main participants in such a way that further discussion seems a waste of time as the thread goes farther afield.
> 
> I do think that this thread may give "when is it going to start" a run for the money for the longest thread by the time Zinke and or Trump are out of office.


This thread has expanded a bit, but IMO the theme is easily recognizable. The question in my mind is whether or not the administration is promoting access to and protection of our public lands, and in a more general way, whether the actions of this administration protect or degrade our environment. These are not partisan issues, and I strongly disagree with the assertion that they are.

As sportsmen, outdoorsmen, hunters and fishermen, we rely on access to our lands, the protection of those lands from development and exploitation, clean air, pure water, etc. We must remain vigilant and ensure that our elected and appointed officials act in ways that *further* (see what I did *there*?) our best interests. If some see these as partisan issue, folks need to rethink their positions.


----------



## PBH

*Irregardless*, this is all *preventative*. *Literally*. You can tell by looking at the *entitle* of this very thread. It's* ironic*  .

Of course, just like El Guapo, Zinke is now *infamous* (more than famous!) So much so that he's become *inflammable*, in a *bemused* kind of way. Not to *imply* that he didn't handle this in *well* manner. He should have taken some *advise*, especially *between* the groups. No *complement* for him. His decision was *discreet* (and *discrete*!) and possibly even *elicit* (and *illicit*!). Time will reveal the *impact*. Or will time reveal the *affect*? or maybe even the *effect*.

*Your* up.


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> *Irregardless*, this is all *preventative*. *Literally*. You can tell by looking at the *entitle* of this very thread. It's* ironic*  .
> 
> Of course, just like El Guapo, Zinke is now *infamous* (more than famous!) So much so that he's become *inflammable*, in a *bemused* kind of way. Not to *imply* that he didn't handle this in *well* manner. He should have taken some *advise*, especially *between* the groups. No *complement* for him. His decision was *discreet* (and *discrete*!) and possibly even *elicit* (and *illicit*!). Time will reveal the *impact*. Or will time reveal the *affect*? or maybe even the *effect*.
> 
> *Your* up.


What I want to know is if the effects of having a new National Park near Escalante will further inflame the local residents and affect how they view what Zinke has done?

I am not sure if they're ready to name the new park "Zinke National Park" or if they are mad about a NP in their back yard, down there.

Zinke NP is probably taking things farther than Paddler would like to go.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Also, I'm not sure I understand why you would speak against the Clean Power Plan if you think is a good thing.


To argue the law, it is wise to first know the law. To design a bridge, it is wise to understand mechanics - Statics and Dynamics.

Same applies to energy, it's use, consumption, and reliability...


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> What I want to know is if the effects of having a new National Park near Escalante will further inflame the local residents and affect how they view what Zinke has done?
> 
> I am not sure if they're ready to name the new park "Zinke National Park" or if they are mad about a NP in their back yard, down there.
> 
> Zinke NP is probably taking things farther than Paddler would like to go.


I'd prefer restoring the monuments as designated. I'm confident that the local tourism businesses, tribes, and outdoor groups feel the same. The proposed NP is an insult.



High Desert Elk said:


> To argue the law, it is wise to first know the law. To design a bridge, it is wise to understand mechanics - Statics and Dynamics.
> 
> Same applies to energy, it's use, consumption, and reliability...


Not helping yourself, HDE.

On a related matter, the White House now says we need not conserve oil. This further illustrates my point, the administration is relentless in its attacks on the environment. MAGA, Baby:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...er-necessary-for-us-says-trump-administration


----------



## PBH

Catherder said:


> What I want to know is if the effects of having a new National Park near Escalante will further inflame the local residents and affect how they view what Zinke has done?
> 
> I am not sure if they're ready to name the new park "Zinke National Park" or if they are mad about a NP in their back yard, down there.


I'm not too sure that most of them understand that this has even been proposed, or realize the potential implications of it. I know it scares me. I certainly am not for a NP in the Escalante Canyons area.

But, then again, I can't help myself but think: sometimes you get what you ask for. They wanted the NM reduced. I don't think they ever considered that a NP would be the solution to that issue...


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> I'd prefer restoring the monuments as designated. I'm confident that the local tourism businesses, tribes, and outdoor groups feel the same. The proposed NP is an insult.
> 
> Not helping yourself, HDE.
> 
> On a related matter, the White House now says we need not conserve oil. This further illustrates my point, the administration is relentless in its attacks on the environment. MAGA, Baby:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...er-necessary-for-us-says-trump-administration


Flew right over your head, so no need to continue *further*.

But hey, as long as everyone feels good, that's the only thing that matters.

Here's your participation trophy...


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Flew right over your head, so no need to continue *further*.
> 
> But hey, as long as everyone feels good, that's the only thing that matters.
> 
> Here's your participation trophy...


Your cryptic posts don't impress me much. If you'd like to explain how Trump's rolling back Obama's Clean Power Plan *affects* our power grid, or what *effects* doing so will have on the environment and our world standing regarding global warming, *you're* welcome to do so. If not, keep *your* silliness to yourself.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Your cryptic posts don't impress me much. If you'd like to explain how Trump's rolling back Obama's Clean Power Plan *affects* our power grid, or what *effects* doing so will have on the environment and our world standing regarding global warming, *you're* welcome to do so. If not, keep *your* silliness to yourself.


Ok, so black and white then. A community orgainzer and jr. level senator coddled his entire political career is hardly qualified to make policy about a reliable grid or anything pertinent and relative to impacts that energy production and development may or may not have on both a domestic and global environmental scale.

The over designation of acreage for a monument and then shrinking it back to the size it should be is a difficult pill to swallow when all your life you've been awarded for effort and taught that everyone is a winner for trying.

There is no free lunch, everything has a cost. Everything. 
As soon as that is understood, a credible dialog cannot begin...

Whether they be natural gas wellpads producing 50 MMSCF per day to generate xxx MW, or thousands of acres of solar panels and /or wind turbines, some environment, habitat, or white footed mouse will lose.

What are you, paddler, willing to give up? Until you answer that question, you have zero skin in the game.

Chao.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Ok, so black and white then. A community orgainzer and jr. level senator coddled his entire political career is hardly qualified to make policy about a reliable grid or anything pertinent and relative to impacts that energy production and development may or may not have on both a domestic and global environmental scale.
> 
> The over designation of acreage for a monument and then shrinking it back to the size it should be is a difficult pill to swallow when all your life you've been awarded for effort and taught that everyone is a winner for trying.
> 
> There is no free lunch, everything has a cost. Everything.
> As soon as that is understood, a credible dialog cannot begin...
> 
> Whether they be natural gas wellpads producing 50 MMSCF per day to generate xxx MW, or thousands of acres of solar panels and /or wind turbines, some environment, habitat, or white footed mouse will lose.
> 
> What are you, paddler, willing to give up? Until you answer that question, you have zero skin in the game.
> 
> Chao.


It's Ciao.

It appears that your hatred of Obama motivates you. You are obviously unwilling to consider that his DOE would consult with experts in crafting energy policy, and in that you would be incorrect. You may wish to read the wiki on Moniz, Obama's Energy Secretary during his second term, and compare it to Rick Perry's lack of qualifications. Here is an excerpt:

*Ernest Jeffrey Moniz, GCIH[1] (born December 22, 1944) is an American nuclear physicist and former United States Secretary of Energy, serving under U.S. President Barack Obama from May 2013 to January 2017. In June 2017, Moniz became co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to prevent catastrophic attacks with weapons of mass destruction and disruption--nuclear, biological, radiological and cyber.[2] He served as the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President of the United States from 1995 to 1997 and was Under Secretary of Energy from 1997 to 2001 during the Clinton Administration.

Moniz is one of the founding members of The Cyprus Institute and has served at Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, as the Director of the Energy Initiative, and as the Director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.[3]
*
Perhaps you prefer government by tweet; ie, Trump watching Fox and Friends during his executive time while lying in bed eating Big Macs, with scientific or expert input from absolutely nobody. Cool.

You also seem to believe that our legally designated monuments were too large. You are entitled to your own opinion but should recognize that the size was arrived at by consensus, with multiple stakeholders involved, and they are supported by the majority. Thus, your opinion is not universally held.

Additionally, you seem to assume that people are unaware of the trade offs involved between renewable and fossil fuel energy production, which would once again be incorrect. Most scientists, and by that I mean roughly 97%, believe that climate change is caused by man, and the leading factor is the burning of fossil fuels. Obama's Clean Power Plan is an attempt to address these concerns, to live up to our commitments under the Paris Climate Accord, and to encourage other countries to participate in reducing climate change. Let me put it succinctly. Everything you think you know is wrong.


----------



## middlefork




----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> I do think that this thread may give "when is it going to start" a run for the money for the longest thread by the time Zinke and/or Trump are out of office.


Over my dead body! I'll get this thing locked before we ever get even in the same zip code of that thread. That thread is UWN royalty. Sacred ground. This one is beyond stupid.

Paddler, the only person I remember trying to restrict hunter access to public lands is you. But that was a long time ago. Maybe you've changed since then? (No, I did not type that last sentence with a straight face.)


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> It's Ciao.
> 
> You also seem to believe that our legally designated monuments were too large. You are entitled to your own opinion but should recognize that the size was arrived at by consensus, with multiple stakeholders involved, and they are supported by the majority. Thus, your opinion is not universally held.
> 
> Additionally, you seem to assume that people are unaware of the trade offs involved between renewable and fossil fuel energy production, which would once again be incorrect. Most scientists, and by that I mean roughly 97%, believe that climate change is caused by man, and the leading factor is the burning of fossil fuels. Obama's Clean Power Plan is an attempt to address these concerns, to live up to our commitments under the Paris Climate Accord, and to encourage other countries to participate in reducing climate change. Let me put it succinctly. Everything you think you know is wrong.


Chao is widely used in Chile and is a spanish version of the Italian _Ciao_.

Scientists believing something does not necessarily make it so. Scientists also believe that you and apes, such as chimpanzees, derive from a common ancestor...

The consensus of the monument support is convenient when you only include and survey those who gain for free.

The trade off of fossil fuel energy and renewable is air pollution vs. footprint. But, thanks to technology and regulatuon, air scrubbers now clean up the exhaust for both coal and natural gas. But, it will cost Mr. and Mrs. Consumer a bit more because of a higher ROR on investment to construct and install those scrubbers.

For your reading pleasure. Renewables alone do not create a stable grid:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46378868&n...solar-installations-drop-23-percent-in-1-year

So, let's keep your monument size intact. At the same time, let's decrease fossil fuel use for the sake of legacy and posterity. While we're at it, please tell everyone who's acreage must go away to install vast expanses of solar array's and wind farms.

Is your solution to implement eminent domain? Are you going to suggest all public land be made monument or national park status to keep extraction out or only make pristine landscape this way and turn "unworthy" public land into renewable energy factories?

Tit for tat, give and take. No hatred of just one president or political party. Just very little patience for those who don't live in the real world and are more clueless than they realize...

And as an FYI, the EPA proposed a repeal to the Clean Power Plan with it's replacement, the Affordable Clean Energy rule and allowing the individual states to set the standard for themselves, a truly mind-blowing concept for some.

*Chao*


----------



## CPAjeff

In Brazil is Tchau - I’m just here for the grammar and foreign language cultural experiences!


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> While we're at it, please tell everyone who's acreage must go away to install vast expanses of solar array's and wind farms.


Well, back in the real world, free enterprise comes back into play. When government subsidy checks are no longer putting new diesel trucks in the garage, then Major Major's father will quit not growing alfalfa, and he'll instead lease his land out to the solar and wind farms.

Who's losing their land to these farms???

tschüss


----------



## paddler

Nobody said renewables would completely replace fossil fuels. It's a complex issue that will continue to evolve. Progress will resume when the Liar in Chief leaves office. We will then see really bright people once again tackle these issues, instead of Rick Perry, who wanted to abolish the department he now leads but really didn't understand what it does, who has no science background whatsoever, and couldn't remember its name as the third department he wanted to abolish during the debates. Only in the post truth era of Trump does a degree in animal husbandry qualify one to oversee our nuclear program and our energy supply. Great dancer, though.

I rarely bet against science. The trade off also includes CO2 production and so global warming. Are you saying that you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change?

And, no, the EPA is not *supposed* to roll back emission standards. It's the Environmental Protection Agency. And rolling back the standards means older plants won't modernize, install scrubbers, etc. So the plan will increase pollution, CO2 emissions and increase premature deaths by 470-1400 per year. So there you go. MAGA.


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Over my dead body! I'll get this thing locked before we ever get even in the same zip code of that thread. That thread is UWN royalty. Sacred ground. This one is beyond stupid.


Looks like "When is it...." is pretty safe. With both Manafort and Cohen going down today, I'm not sure Trump/Zinke will be in office long enough to give this thread a chance to catch it. :shock:

I might have to pay more attention to the thread though. There have actually been a few intelligent thoughts presented the past day or so.

Tot volgende keer....


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Looks like "When is it...." is pretty safe. With both Manafort and Cohen going down today, I'm not sure Trump/Zinke will be in office long enough to give this thread a chance to catch it. :shock:
> 
> I might have to pay more attention to the thread though. There have actually been a few intelligent thoughts presented the past day or so.
> 
> Tot volgende keer....


Bad day for Trump. Sad.

I must have missed that other thread. Link?


----------



## paddler

*Just More Nonsense*

So, it appears that she will be working on "congressional relations", which sounds a bit like lobbying. But that would be a violation of Trump's Ethics Pledge, if you thought "Trump" and "Ethics" ever belonged in the same sentence. So, she shrinks the monuments to benefit oil extraction, then is rewarded by BP with a lobbying job. Nice and cozy. Thank you once again, Secretary Zinke. Drain that swamp. MAGA, Baby.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/28/top-interior-staffer-who/


----------



## paddler

Don't now how many of you have been following the Zinke saga, but he has been under investigation by the DOI inspector general for multiple transgressions. I think at least four separate investigations. 

Funny, he recently tried to replace his IG with Ben Carson's. She's the one who somehow decided that Carson's $31,000 purchase of a dining room set was okay, despite the fact that federal law requires expenditures in excess of $5000 be approved in advance by Congress. That plan got blown up, Ben's IG is no longer employed by the government, and Zinke's IG stayed. She has referred at least one of her investigations to the DOJ, something about using his office to "help" himself. Drain the swamp, baby. MAGA, and thanks again, Secretary Zinke.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> Don't now how many of you have been following the Zinke saga, but he has been under investigation by the DOI inspector general for multiple transgressions. I think at least four separate investigations.
> 
> Funny, he recently tried to replace his IG with Ben Carson's. She's the one who somehow decided that Carson's $31,000 purchase of a dining room set was okay, despite the fact that federal law requires expenditures in excess of $5000 be approved in advance by Congress. That plan got blown up, Ben's IG is no longer employed by the government, and Zinke's IG stayed. She has referred at least one of her investigations to the DOJ, something about using his office to "help" himself. Drain the swamp, baby. MAGA, and thanks again, Secretary Zinke.


I was kind of wondering if this thread had finally gone away. Apparently not.

Hey P, look on the bright side. It looks like the "D"'s will get control of the House next week. Regardless of whatever good (or bad) that would mean for ones overall political leanings, it would mean that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that a "D" house would approve any land grab/TPL legislation that the Utah congressional delegation has been hoping to put forward.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> I was kind of wondering if this thread had finally gone away. Apparently not.
> 
> Hey P, look on the bright side. It looks like the "D"'s will get control of the House next week. Regardless of whatever good (or bad) that would mean for ones overall political leanings, it would mean that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that a "D" house would approve any land grab/TPL legislation that the Utah congressional delegation has been hoping to put forward.


Maybe, we'll see. I'd love to take both the House and Senate. Maybe then "Congressional Oversight" will mean something. Public lands would benefit immensely.

Oh, and we're not done with Zinke. He needs to be held accountable. Looks like his poor judgement is a pattern:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/ryan-zinke-navy-seal.html


----------



## Vanilla

Weird, we didn’t see any posts by paddler about the mining claims blocked and other things done by Zinke recently to protect public lands. 

Weird indeed.


----------



## paddler

It's not clear to me that not doing something one shouldn't do is grounds for congratulations or thanks. Weird that anybody would celebrate that kind of thing.

It appears that the investigation is a land deal conflict of interest, and even the White House is concerned. That's weird, too, because they seem completely unconcerned about corruption:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...-violated-federal-rules/ar-BBPeCkx?li=BBnbcA1


----------



## paddler

More news:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...tradicted-ethics-pledge/ar-BBPnsqV?li=BBnbcA1

What ethics?


----------



## wyogoob

Keep this thread outdoor related please.

Try Googling 'Zinke sage grouse' 

Not good; drill, baby, drill.


----------



## wyogoob

Zinke's going to auction off 700,000 acres of Federal land for oil n gas drilling.

https://www.ecowatch.com/public-lands-fracking-2516878619.html

.


----------



## wyogoob

Zinke's gonna roll back 18 year's worth of work that's been done on protecting the greater sage grouse.

https://www.wyofile.com/mead-unfazed-by-zinkes-sage-grouse-plan/

.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Oh my...


----------



## wyoming2utah

High Desert Elk said:


> View attachment 133853
> 
> 
> Oh my...


I would feel the same way except for all of the studies showing this:
http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com...efits-Migratory-Mule-Deer-LOW-RES-0318151.pdf


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lease acres are not the same thing as surface acres. Market conditions will cap increased production due to environmental controls that states will, or could impose, the whole point to the EPA redrafting their original carbon emmisions rule to give more say to the states.

At a state level, regulating it's own mineral lease program may well put better protections on sage hens and mule deer. If a state such as WY understands the effect increased production will have on these two animals, and do nothing about it, then shame on WY, not Zinke...

I also saw something about housing development as well, first infact, but maybe not.


----------



## ZEKESMAN

wyogoob said:


> Zinke's gonna roll back 18 year's worth of work that's been done on protecting the greater sage grouse.
> 
> https://www.wyofile.com/mead-unfazed-by-zinkes-sage-grouse-plan/
> 
> .


Can you please repost those views of the well pads you posted before? Thanks


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Lease acres are not the same thing as surface acres. Market conditions will cap increased production due to environmental controls that states will, or could impose, the whole point to the EPA redrafting their original carbon emmisions rule to give more say to the states.
> 
> *At a state level, regulating it's own mineral lease program may well put better protections on sage hens and mule deer. If a state such as WY understands the effect increased production will have on these two animals, and do nothing about it, then shame on WY, not Zinke...*
> 
> I also saw something about housing development as well, first infact, but maybe not.


I suppose that depends on how much you trust the states. I think the EPA has more resources, more expertise, and should be responsible for imposing environmental controls.


----------



## wyogoob

*More of this coming your way*



ZEKESMAN said:


> Can you please repost those views of the well pads you posted before? Thanks


Utah, just north of the Green River:


Wyoming, at was once a haven for sage grouse and wintering mule deer:






drill, baby, drill


----------



## Critter

Ya got to love all those white dots. 

But you also have to remember that none of them are permanent and have to be reclaimed once they are finished. Along with most of the access roads


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> Utah, just north of the Green River:
> 
> 
> Wyoming, at was once a haven for sage grouse and wintering mule deer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drill, baby, drill


What's really interesting is that Utah hasn't imposed any environmental controls.


----------



## JerryH

Absolutely sickening!


----------



## High Desert Elk

One of those pics is near Big Piney, WY and drilled back when people liked good paychecks that have put a lot of shoes on kids' feet, food on the table, and a roof over their heads. Probably paid for a few kids' degrees in environmental or political science, on second thought - those kids probably became geologists and engineers. Most of that oil has been consumed so people could go on ski trips to Alpine, Sundance, and Snowbird. Maybe Wolf Creek too. Probably throw in a trip to Hawaii or Cancun every now and then. Good thing the natural gas has heated a lot of homes instead of cutting down thousands of acres of timber for firewood.

Everything has a cost people. Do you want the comforts and luxuries of life, or go without at times?

Blow, baby, blow (wind turbines that is...)


----------



## Critter

Also remember if it wasn't for oil and gas exploration a lot of the areas that we now hunt would only have one road in them if even that. A great example is the Book Cliffs. In the 60's, and early 70's there were only a couple of roads out there and you had a hard time accessing them from the south side.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> One of those pics is near Big Piney, WY and drilled back when people liked good paychecks that have put a lot of shoes on kids' feet, food on the table, and a roof over their heads. Probably paid for a few kids' degrees in environmental or political science, on second thought - those kids probably became geologists and engineers. Most of that oil has been consumed so people could go on ski trips to Alpine, Sundance, and Snowbird. Maybe Wolf Creek too. Probably throw in a trip to Hawaii or Cancun every now and then. Good thing the natural gas has heated a lot of homes instead of cutting down thousands of acres of timber for firewood.
> 
> Everything has a cost people. Do you want the comforts and luxuries of life, or go without at times?
> 
> Blow, baby, blow (wind turbines that is...)


Which one of those is near Big Piney? If it was drilled a while ago, has it been reclaimed? Hard to tell since those images are so old. Does anybody have updated files showing the areas have been reclaimed?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Which one of those is near Big Piney? If it was drilled a while ago, has it been reclaimed? Hard to tell since those images are so old. Does anybody have updated files showing the areas have been reclaimed?


I wondered the same thing as the date stamp reads 2006 on the photo.

I've always been between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, I hunt and fish as a "second" job and on the other, make my living in energy production (for now anyway). So seeing ground used for mineral extraction has always had mixed feelings because I've lost hunting areas to wellpads and increased activity/traffic but also know it's a necessary evil to have the comforts and ease of life we all want.

You can produce a barrel of oil and a cubic foot of gas pretty cheap, just need to curb in Mr. or Ms. CEO's compensation package and reduce wages for oil and gas employees (tough pill to swallow but has and is already happening), or cut the ranks and keep wages up (again, already happening). This means you can now drill fewer wells using modern horizontal drilling and completion technology reducing footprint disturbance. Carbon emmisions through any venting is also reduced because you have less equipment producing the same product. The only regulation that needs to be rollled back is the ability to compress natural gas to LNG and export. Although an unpopular belief by Wildearth Guardians, natural gas is actually a very clean fuel source, especially when NOx emmision controls are applied. Exporting surplus natural gas is a good way for investors to get a return for pumping money into XYZ Operating, LLC.

Zinke can put up 700,000 lease acres up for auction, and with 10,000' laterals, you will only have a handful of new wellpads. I doubt you'd see the effect on prarie chickens and mule deer you once did as a result of the 70's and 80's boom eras...


----------



## ZEKESMAN

Sounds like Zinke is on short time. Vic


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> I wondered the same thing as the date stamp reads 2006 on the photo.
> 
> I've always been between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, I hunt and fish as a "second" job and on the other, make my living in energy production (for now anyway). So seeing ground used for mineral extraction has always had mixed feelings because I've lost hunting areas to wellpads and increased activity/traffic but also know it's a necessary evil to have the comforts and ease of life we all want.
> 
> You can produce a barrel of oil and a cubic foot of gas pretty cheap, just need to curb in Mr. or Ms. CEO's compensation package and reduce wages for oil and gas employees (tough pill to swallow but has and is already happening), or cut the ranks and keep wages up (again, already happening). This means you can now drill fewer wells using modern horizontal drilling and completion technology reducing footprint disturbance. Carbon emmisions through any venting is also reduced because you have less equipment producing the same product. The only regulation that needs to be rollled back is the ability to compress natural gas to LNG and export. Although an unpopular belief by Wildearth Guardians, natural gas is actually a very clean fuel source, especially when NOx emmision controls are applied. Exporting surplus natural gas is a good way for investors to get a return for pumping money into XYZ Operating, LLC.
> 
> Zinke can put up 700,000 lease acres up for auction, and with 10,000' laterals, you will only have a handful of new wellpads. I doubt you'd see the effect on prarie chickens and mule deer you once did as a result of the 70's and 80's boom eras...


I don't think many would have a problem with energy extraction if it was done with the lowest impact possible and complete habitat restoration once the extraction has been completed. However, it doesn't appear that happens often enough.


----------



## paddler

Looks like the Natural Resources committee will be investigating Zinke in the near future.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> I don't think many would have a problem with energy extraction if it was done with the lowest impact possible and complete habitat restoration once the extraction has been completed. However, it doesn't appear that happens often enough.


The process today is way different than it was "yesterday". A lot of COA's require quite equipment, emission controls, low profile production tanks and pump units (if possible) and request that wellpads be placed in areas where a tree screen can keep out of view, for the most part, production equipment. About the only thing that isn't really done, as far as complete restoration goes, is reestablishing original topography where cut and fill was done for a level pad and restoring flora and fauna. About the only thing the BLM and USFS do is have them reseed the area(s). At least it provides some decent browse and graze for 4 legged critters.

Again, the conundrum [with me] is that the ones who push for development are normally wealthy CEO's in TX that 1) aren't used to public land and/or 2) have their own slice of heaven somewhere they can use as the see fit.


----------



## paddler

Surprised these things haven't been mentioned. One, selling off leases near our national parks, etc:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/12/12/feds-hold-biggest-utah/

An two, rolling back clean water rules:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675477583/trump-epa-proposes-big-changes-to-federal-water-protections

Not Zinke, per se, but something that permeates this entire administration. Why do they hate the environment so much?


----------



## Bax*

Zinke stepping down

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ry...will-leave-his-post-at-end-of-year-trump-says


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax* said:


> Zinke stepping down
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ry...will-leave-his-post-at-end-of-year-trump-says


Oh my oh my.


----------



## paddler

I just saw that on MSNBC. Now, at long last, after almost two years of corruption, self-dealing, and assaults on our public lands and the environment, we can all say a hearty "THANK YOU!!!" to this scum.


----------



## Critter

Just remember whoever replaces him can and might be a lot worse.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> Just remember whoever replaces him can and might be a lot worse.


No doubt, when one considers the current administration. Not sure who will replace him, seems like Trump has a difficult time finding qualified people to fill posts these days.


----------



## paddler

This is good. A $40,000 helicopter ride paid for out of firefighting funds that took him nowhere near the fires:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-ryan-zinke-came-undone/ar-BBQZVw4?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## High Desert Elk

#1DEER 1-I said:


> https://elknetwork.com/rmef-support...95-acres-sabinoso-wilderness-area-new-mexico/
> 
> Good to see him come around on this issue and do what he should have been on the side of all along, unlocking the only landlocked wilderness in the United States. Now the deal has not been done yet but Zinke finally gave the green light to move forward through the process from which he was holding up. Now about those sage grouse plans and national monuments........
> 
> Also thanks for this:
> http://sportsmenslink.org/the-media...ls-to-expand-sportsmens-access-across-the-u.s


At least he was instrumental in this. I can only imagine the caliber of animals that will come out of here once NMDGF forms a hunt unit, or adds this acreage to one.


----------



## Catherder

Well, "when is it going to start" should be pretty safe now. 

Notables like Sean Reyes are on the list for his replacement. I will be curious to see how this plays out. That said, I don't expect the basic policies to be much different than what we have seen the last 2 years.


----------



## paddler

An oil and gas lobbyist, of course.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Critter said:


> Just remember whoever replaces him can and might be a lot worse.


Oh it will. I would expect nothing less.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Zinke was too weak and too willing to compromise for my liking. Let’s get a rough, tough, hardliner in there. 

Anyone who thinks that politics is about compromise is likely a Republican and likely a loser.

Like the book says, “Winners aren’t losers.”————SS


----------

