# One sportsman's view on National Monuments.



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Is the sky really falling?

http://www.fieldandstream.com/sportsmans-view-national-monuments#page-3


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Any thing is just speculation at this point. A whole lot people think the end of the world is near. It is a special place and it I liked how it was but Mr Bishop et all pretty much guaranteed that that it was a NM or worse. The PLI. Was nothing more than a bunch of b's to allow development.
I know there are a bunch of people who hate federal oversight but it was always managed by the Feds before but Bishop couldn't accept that. Tough @@@t. He made it worse by forcing the issue.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Is anyone on this forum claiming that the sky is falling? If so, I have missed it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

The Antiquities Act was needed in it's day, but not anymore. These sites and the ecosystem were already protected under BLM and USFS management plans. Momument status, unless under heavy surveillance by armed guard, will not prevent what may have happened as the link to the Smithsonian article portrayed.

I wish people would quit thinking this area [Bears Ears] is ripe for "drill, baby, drill" because it wasn't, isn't, or ever would be. This is because the area is limited by topography, lack of reserves (dry hole markers show that), NEPA, and cultural protection initiatives to name a few.

I suppose it's ok to have input from local tribes, but they are not totally and discreetly ancestral to the region. Someone was there first many millenia ago (read the article link about 'looters' from the above F&S link). They are just not the most recent new comers to the area. I do not believe they should have complete autonomy over the management use plan, that has not been written yet by the way as monument plans are done after the designation (and can change with each new Congress). They pretty much got what they wanted as usual.

Is the sky falling? Not yet, maybe never. Time will tell. I am quite certain though the monument does not need to encompass 2/3 of Blue Mountain...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert: I guess we can look at it from the other side too: why not designate it?


What will change? It was Federal land and it still is Federal land. 
On the GSENM, cattle grazing is still allowed. Hunting is still allowed. ATVs are still allowed. The only difference on the GSENM is that the area is protected from future oil and gas exploitation. If the Bear's Ears area is a poor candidate for oil and gas (and coal and timber), then why should it matter if it is protected from future drilling??


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Why, why, why? Please tell me WHY our (state and local) political leaders are so vehemently apposed. It can't be it's just some high and mighty ideological stance about over reach...no...I am just not buying that crap. I know there is a lot of just plain old "Obama hate" going on, but it just seems to be something more. Money is, has been and always will be the big motivator behind politicians but I can't even see where that might be coming from...Help me understand, please.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

PBH, you can't compare this one to the Grand Staircase. Go to this website
http://bearsearscoalition.organd decide for yourself. The "proposal" is this will be managed with the tribes interests first. Not necessarily a bad thing, but nevertheless, first.

Does it matter what their take is on the area? Sure it does. But so does mine and yours. If it is managed primarily by BLM and USFS, everyone will get to have a say, not just one special interest group.

There was another post from another thread by johnnycake that outlined a "far fetched" sceanrio that may not be that far fetched at all...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I think NM still have there placeand so does the antiquities act although I can agree it shouldn't be used to designate millions of acres in one sitting. Bears ears IMO if it stays a monument or its current size will remain open to hunting and angling and recreating. Thats what I truly believe and that's what I hope for. Where's the outrage in San Juan County over this:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4784759-155/new-private-owners-block-road-to

If I have my choice between that and a monument, I'll take the monument.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Go to the website http://bearsearscoalition.organd decide for yourself.





Executive Summary from BearsEarsCoalition.org said:


> Objectives
> In keeping with this mission, the Coalition advances the following objectives:
> (1) True collaborative management through the federally created Bears Ears Commission, to include representatives from each of the five Coalition Tribes as well as from three federal land management agencies, who will cooperatively develop a culturally and environmentally sensitive comprehensive management plan consistent with President Obama's proclamation and then carry out the monument's management;
> (2) The integration of Traditional Knowledge into the monument's land management practices and the creation of a world-class Bears Ears Traditional Knowledge Institute, where experts and lay people alike can learn from the rich intersection of Western and traditional Native world views;
> ...



Remind me: what's bad about this?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

PBH said:


> Remind me: what's bad about this?


PBH, for many it is because Obama did it, and because fear has been mongered by local politicians about this locking the public out. As of now there is absolutely nothing within that designation that is a threat to recreation, hunting, or wildlife management at this point. Yes the tribes will be involved in planning, but so will local and state interests. In fact right now, it is written out pretty plainly that it could be business as usual for everything except mining and drilling. Lets sit back and actually see how it unfolds before you say anything I said is wrong, because there's no proof anything will affect much at this point, with the exception of exempting these lands from ever being sold and continuing to remain in public hands. Like I said I'd rather see a National Monument sign when driving into an area than a locked private gate like in the link above.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

This quote from the article I posted above is spot on and is absolutely true:

"The town knew this would happen," Shook said. "If [the Bureau of Land Management] had done this, you guys [county officials] would be jumping through hoops to make it open. [The county is] trying to make sure it was an illegal closure. We believe it is, but they are dragging their feet hoping it goes away. They don't have any respect for the folks who have used the property and accessed the public land."

If the BLM closes a road everyone screams bloody murder, but when someone purchases state land and locks the gate to what is an access road they don't get nearly as worked up. Politics is a fun game of hypocrisy and ridiculous games. A lawsuit would already be filed if it had been the BLM.

Again, we can sit here and watch this happen and little by little lose our public lands because we don't like the fact Obama penned in a monument (that protects hunting, angling, recreation, and fire wood gathering) or we can plant our stake and not lose the amazing things the west has to offer in the next 4 years.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

"(1) True collaborative management through the federally created Bears Ears Commission,* to include representatives from each of the five Coalition Tribes as well as from three federal land management agencies*..."

(6) The continuation of existing, compatible local uses such as climbing, firewood gathering, grazing, hunting according to state *and tribal law*..."




PBH said:


> Remind me: what's bad about this?


This:

(1) Outnumbered on decisions where there may be an impasse.

(6) What business is it of tribal law to have anything to do with the state of Utah to continue to manage hunting and fishing activities in the monument or the BLM/USFS to manage grazing and firewood cutting? None of this proposed monument is on any tribal land. Their tribal law only applies within the confines of their reservation. It does not apply outside. That's what their sovereignty means.

I have spent a lifetime of living among a situation of being second to others interests and prerogatives as a matter of fairness and, as they say, social justice. I know what can happen...

As I said before and will say again, I sure hope I am wrong. Time will tell. This is just one sportsman's view on this monument.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Looks like those two monuments will be Obamas last he will not be designating the Greater Grand Canyon National Monument which has been pushed heavily for by environmentalists. I think this is a good thing. My question to many who are upset over Bears Ears is, do you realize how much you sound like those who opposed Roosevelt? Do you realize millions of acres of the BLM and Forest Service lands you enjoy today were penned in by him literally in the dead of night hours before he lost the right to do so?He did this in a time when the country was in a much more impoverished state than it is now and needed exploitation of resources even more than now. I get the concern over future management and rights but as of now there is no reason to believe much will change on the monument. The designation specifically says it will not increase or decrease Utahs right to manage wildlife within it. You sound exactly like the people who history overwhelmingly looks back on and rejects. Will the area be diminished 50 years from now? Will anyone in 50 years say it was a mistake? Or will it be looked back on like many ideas as something that was very beneficial to our nation and state? It's hard to know at this point, but many ideas and protected places were rejected during their time and they are now cornerstones of our nation. Obama is not Roosevelt, nor are his actions as sincere, but I doubt our grandchildren will be upset Bears Ears exists when they are on this planet. Politics is what ruins everything, not protecting places and politics change over time, land once lost will likely be scarred or sold for good.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...-supporters-vow-to-continue-the-fight-8968063


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

the latest on Bears Ears:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...nal-monuments/ar-BBzOznM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Rumor has it that Trump will try to reduce or rescind it. Erring on the side of conservation is the best approach, IMO. Leave it alone and reassess the economic impact in 5 or 10 years. I predict it will be positive. You can visit and enjoy protected land forever, you can only exploit and despoil it once.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don't see any way President Trump fully rescinds it. I do think there is a chance that it will be reduced in size. As it should be.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> I don't see any way President Trump fully rescinds it. I do think there is a chance that it will be reduced in size. As it should be.


Probably will be reduced, but I'd favor leaving it alone and allowing the various stakeholders develop a management plan. I expect the Do Gooders will sue if he tries to reduce it. Where do I send the check?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

FWIW, as an avid sportsman and native son of Utah, I've invested considerable (for me) time and money in the Bear's Ears fight. On its face, the fight has been about land management. But really, the fight has been all about power and control...still is.

While many are concerned about federal authority, I'm more concerned about state authority simply because the state has a more direct and profound influence on my lifestyle. That concern is compounded by the apparent objective of Utah's political leadership and their conduct in achieving that objective.

Seems to me that in a democratic republic, our representatives should be working to expedite the will of the people. But that's not what I'm seeing. Rather, I'm seeing our representatives telling Utah's citizens what our will should be. In and of itself, that might not always be a bad thing. But in this instance, they're using misinformation, misrepresentation and even bald faced lies to do it. If their cause is righteous (the will of the people), why would such tactics be necessary?

NM designation effectively removes these 1.3 million acres from any future hopes for state control. Even if Utah politicians succeed in gaining control of federal lands, the state would still be required to manage Bear's Ears as a NM.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

paddler said:


> Rumor has it that Trump will try to reduce or rescind it.


The law flat out states:



> "the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."


note it specifically calls out "smallest area". IMO Bears Ears should exist as a NM, but it should be reduced in size over what was currently allocated.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

DallanC said:


> The law flat out states:
> 
> note it specifically calls out "smallest area". IMO Bears Ears should exist as a NM, but it should be reduced in size over what was currently allocated.
> 
> -DallanC


Well, I suppose that depends on what is deemed "compatible". If you want to protect ancient indian ruins, etc, they must be included. And, if they're scattered around, you must include more area.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I was not in favor of the monument but Bishops PLI was terrible and IMO forced the monument designation.

Dallen I would be interested in your opinion of what areas could be reduced and by how much.

As far as I can tell from the maps the boundary follows easily defined parameters using mostly roads and ridgelines much like the hunting proclamations. And having visited a great part of it I can see the difficulty of trying to protect the artifacts and ruins that are all over that area.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It's funny that the Bears Ears situation has become the poster child for the public lands issue. Outdoor Retailer used it as its facade, and people have taken it hook, line, and sinker.

The alternative to designating the national monument was *NOT* state control. It was simply leaving it as it was, in control of federal agencies. No matter how many times the Outdoor Retailer Association or anyone else tells you that we lose public access if the monument is rescinded (or never designated, for that matter), it doesn't make it true.

Here is the reality: the law is not clear on if a president can rescind a national monument. But what is clear is congress could if it wanted to. What is also clear is that states will NEVER gain control of federal lands without the consent of congress. Utah and everyone else can sue, and will lose. Period. If congress wants public lands in states' hands, they can even make that happen with Bears Ears. They can change the designation and/or the law as they see fit. I share that simply to correct this belief that President Obama's action somehow saved us from losing public access to this area in favor of the states selling it. Nothing has changed in that realm, as acts of congress will be needed regardless.

I'm in an interesting situation here: I love public lands and will continue to fight for them. But I fundamentally disagree with unilateral executive action on national monuments. It's way too much power to give one individual, especially considering the vastness of these designations.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> It's funny that the Bears Ears situation has become the poster child for the public lands issue. Outdoor Retailer used it as its facade, and people have taken it hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> The alternative to designating the national monument was *NOT* state control. It was simply leaving it as it was, in control of federal agencies. No matter how many times the Outdoor Retailer Association or anyone else tells you that we lose public access if the monument is rescinded (or never designated, for that matter), it doesn't make it true.
> 
> ...


Bears Ears is complicated. It can be seen as an alternative to Bishop's PLI, ie, encouraging extraction or encouraging conservation and protection. Given Bishop's history as a puppet for oil and gas exploiters, I believe the monument is the better choice. I also disagree that the Antiquities Act places too much power in the hands of the president. Just look at the list of our NMs, are there many you disagree with? How many of them wouldn't be protected if left to local control or Congress? Think Grand Canyon, for example, or, more recently, Bears Ears. Now, some have been abolished or redesignated, but always for a rational reason. Trying to eliminate President Obama's legacy is not a rational or valid reason.

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/abolished.htm


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I disagree with every national monument created only by executive action. It has nothing to do with President Obama. But if his legacy hangs on overuse of executive powers, we'll, then....aaaah, nevermind. 

Just like the only alternative to Bears Ears designation was not state ownership, the alternative was also NOT Bishop's plan. (Which I don't like) Fear mongering at its best is all that is.


----------

