# Utah's Monuments - Staying or Going?



## Bax*

With Pres Trump's highly publicized decision on Presidentially declared monuments today, what do you think is going to happen?

How will this affect land access for sportsmen?


----------



## Catherder

I suspect that the "review" will take some time and eventually, if Trump reduces or rescinds either monument, litigation will drag any final decision out for years. 

I foresee no changes to sportsmens access in either location in the foreseeable future and we aren't restricted now.


----------



## LostLouisianian

I see nothing wrong with periodic reviews especially monument designations that abuse the intent of the original law and specifically those done near the time a POTUS is leaving office


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I'm okay with review of the monuments. The point of this executive order is to target Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, that's why it extends to 21 years(GS was designated 20 years ago). From what I've read this review is supposed to be carried out fairly quickly. I'm okay seeing Bears Ears scaled back, less so on Grand Staircase. I think the review will be fine and hope it is done in an honest way. I agree Catherder, especially if he tries to completely rescind either of them. It will be litigated in court and he will likely lose. The better chance to accomplish anything here is to adjust their size, if they try to rescind either of them they will see lawsuit after lawsuit and they won't get anything done. We shall see, I think a review and an honest discussion is a good approach and a much better approach than just signing an order rescinding a monument.


----------



## Kwalk3

I agree with Lost to a point. However, I do find the argument against things done near the end of a presidency to be tired, and pretty much partisan based on whose team is in office at the time. 

While I don't personally see the actual protections of these areas as problematic for sportsmen, as access and hunting aren't currently restricted, I don't think that a review of the monument designations is the worst thing in the world....IF, and this is a big IF, the motives and methods of the review are clearly defined. 

I would also like to see some of the figures for the Outdoor recreation industry be included in the review to give an accurate assessment of the effect of monument designations. My concern is that the review will be heavily slanted towards analyzing resource extraction potential with recreation being nothing more than an afterthought.

I don't necessarily like the way the designations were made. I think the 1Mil+ acre designations are probably a bastardization of the original intent of the Antiquities Act and executive overreach. I also think many of the areas warrant increased protections, and it's not as if the abusive wielding of executive authority is a one-party issue. 

I also don't like the idea that one team can come in and undo protections that have been in place for 21 years and haven't proven to be detrimental to the economies surrounding the area as far as I can tell.


----------



## High Desert Elk

I could see the footprints reduced, but not rescinded. Any and all access currently in place will likely remain as such, with the addition of "extra" access and use. I also see a more balanced approach of how they are managed rather than so one sided with an agenda.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

For anyone wondering about a time table on this order, within 45 days a recommendation for Bears Ears is required and a final recommendation is required for this order within 120 days.


----------



## Catherder

Here is some news coverage.

http://kutv.com/news/local/trump-calls-national-monuments-a-massive-federal-land-grab

I find it curious to hear Trump call it a "land grab". :roll: So far as I could tell, the property did not change hands.


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> Here is some news coverage.
> 
> http://kutv.com/news/local/trump-calls-national-monuments-a-massive-federal-land-grab
> 
> I find it curious to hear Trump call it a "land grab". :roll: So far as I could tell, the property did not change hands.


The "land grab" phrase is truly ridiculous in this instance and really makes you wonder who's informing his decision and the review of this issue. I would bet you wouldn't have to look much further than SLC.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

As I've stated in other threads, I philosophically disagree with national monument designation solely by executive action. Yes, I know the law allows for this, but I don't think it should. 

I absolutely welcome the review, and I expect Bears Ears to be reduced, and it should be. Grand Staircase is likely a bit more difficult with as long as it's been in place, but I could see it reduced as well. 

Neither will be rescinded. A reduction will likely be challenged in court, but just as the president can designate a monument, a president make reduce one. There is precedent for that as well. 

None of this should impact sportsmen access to these areas.


----------



## paddler

I completely agree with the Antiquities Act. There is no restriction on when a president can designate a monument, for good reason. In the case of Bears Ears, Obama delayed action to give Congress all the time they needed to protect the area. Bishop's PLI went nowhere, so Obama did precisely the right thing after waiting patiently but in vain for Congress to come up with protections that all stakeholders could support.

As far as I know, monuments have been reduced but not abolished by presidents. Those reductions have not been tested in court, and there is no case law on this question. I think Trump will try to reduce Bears Ears and maybe Grand Staircase, but if so, it will certainly go to court.

It's interesting that voters in the west favor leaving monuments alone over time by a huge majority, ie, 80%. They become very popular because they are good for local economies and for the country.

http://www.audubon.org/news/-legal-...ers-resizing-or-rescinding-national-monuments


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> None of this should impact sportsmen access to these areas.


Should? I say it very well could impact access and much more. Let's say, for example, that the Grand Staircase is shrunk and Utah is allowed to mine some of those mineral resources that our state has been salivating so much over. As soon as that happens, roads will be built, fences put up, and wild areas forever impacted.

Sorry, but I ain't buying what you are selling. Reduction of these monuments could certainly have a very negative impact on sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts. Before the Grand Staircase was made a national monument plans were being developed to put roads all over that area along with 150 mines. Having the GS monument reduced in size is nothing more than a ploy for the state to get their hands on those minerals.


----------



## Vanilla

W2U- you're right in that it might impact how YOU like to enjoy the area. I was speaking more to the fact that I do not believe that sportsman will lose access to the area. 

We can all debate until we're blue in the face that everything should be the way we want it. I would probably agree that leaving it untouched by extraction, development, etc. is a good policy. But we are not going to get everything, so I just hope for continued access above all.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> W2U- you're right in that it might impact how YOU like to enjoy the area. I was speaking more to the fact that I do not believe that sportsman will lose access to the area.
> 
> We can all debate until we're blue in the face that everything should be the way we want it. I would probably agree that leaving it untouched by extraction, development, etc. is a good policy. But we are not going to get everything, so I just hope for continued access above all.


Monument designations merely restrict increasing extraction, grazing, etc. So it sounds like we all want the same thing, ie, protections from future development. I certainly favor that approach. This is from the link I posted above:

*National monument status generally puts new development-like oil and gas drilling, mining, or expanded cattle grazing-off limits, allowing only existing leases that are grandfathered in to be developed.*

Donald Trump vows to "fix" the monuments. Right after we see his tax returns, or we see the White House visitor logs, or he provides health coverage for all, great healthcare, and for much lower cost. Ha.


----------



## PBH

Vanilla said:


> W2U- you're right in that it might impact how YOU like to enjoy the area. I was speaking more to the fact that I do not believe that sportsman will lose access to the area.


'Nilla -- I'm not following you. If the area is reduced, and a new mining / drilling / grazing / etc. lease is allowed on that specific area the first thing we'll see is a fence with a "No Trespassing" sign attached to it. How would that not affect sportsman access?

Paddler pointed out something that most of us republicans continue to ignore concerning the designation: Obama gave Congress plenty of time to do something concerning the Bears Ears. Nothing happened. It was only after nothing happened that the designation went through. We cannot sit here and complain about this "last minute" designation. There are consequences to not following through with instruction.

I am OK with a review, but intentions of the review are a concern.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> W2U- you're right in that it might impact how YOU like to enjoy the area. I was speaking more to the fact that I do not believe that sportsman will lose access to the area.
> 
> We can all debate until we're blue in the face that everything should be the way we want it. I would probably agree that leaving it untouched by extraction, development, etc. is a good policy. But we are not going to get everything, so I just hope for continued access above all.


I am not talking about how I want it...I am talking about sportsmen losing access because land will be leased to mining companies, fences will be put up, and sportsmen kicked out. That is the plan of our republican state....to mine the resources.

Just recently Zinke announced the finalization of the Greens Hollow lease which covers over 6,000 acres on what was public land. http://www.sltrib.com/home/5062079-155/zinke-finalizes-greens-hollow-coal-lease


----------



## BPturkeys

The only reason the locals/politicians don't want a Monument designation is because that makes the property one more step removed from transferring it to State and ultimately private ownership. It is much more difficult to get congress to sell/transfer land that is designated Monument or National Park than it is to transfer plain old BLM land. These guys don't give a dam* about preservation, or access or any of the issues most people are concentrating on, there one and only goal is the transfer of this land to private property.
Don't be fooled, vote these land grabbers out or forever hold your piece.


----------



## Catherder

A couple more comments.

1.


BPturkeys said:


> The only reason the locals/politicians don't want a Monument designation is because that makes the property one more step removed from transferring it to State and ultimately private ownership. It is much more difficult to get congress to sell/transfer land that is designated Monument or National Park than it is to transfer plain old BLM land.


This is exactly right.

2. While I don't see a problem with renewing leases on existing mine like Greens Hollow or even Alton, it bears repeating that Utah politicians hypersalivation about mining all this coal and getting rich from it is improbable to produce what they think it will. I posted this article in another thread but it is worth repeating here.

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

What I do foresee if the state got it's way was that they would be hard pressed to find well paying customers for their coal and would then slash the costs of royalties and taxes to help get *any* customer. The net result would be everybody loses. The state doesn't get all the money they promised the voters, and the land still gets degraded, negatively affecting the recreationalists and the public at large. As for jobs, I refer you to the 2nd graph in the article about the long term prospects for coal mining jobs.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

The point of this review is obvious to anyone being honest. Its all about mineral extraction and targeting 2 Utah monuments Utah republicans don't like. Grand Staircase is an amazing place that also has amazing ACCESS. We can debate the way it was designated and why, but the bottom line is that area's wildlife value and wild value overall was protected when it was designated a monument. Bax you have mentioned the roads and trash. The trash and roads that now are part of GS area a change for sure, but the mining that was planned and will be pursued if the monument is reduced will have MUCH greater influence on wildlife, habitat, access, the land itself, and the public than what we see due to the monument designation. I do not wish to see GS reduced in any way, it should remain and stand AS IS after 20 years of protection. It will without a doubt due the most good, to the most people, for the greatest amount of time. Removing monument status moves it a step closer to state ownership, which is a step closer to private ownership which as many above have said is the end goal. Can anyone here with a straight face tell me someone like Mike Lee truly wants to see public land is state ownership? NO, these politicians goals are private ownership and if they have to take a few small steps to get it there they will. If Bears Ears is rolled back to a smaller size I think that is reasonable, completely rescinding it isn't something I support, nor something I think will happen when it inevitably heads to court. Utah politicans have wanted to get their hands on GS coal since before it was designated, I would rather they don't get their hands on it and ruin the natural resource value of the area. Another bottom line is Bears Ears is a cool area and has the things to have reason enough to be protected including in a monument status. We can debate the size, but there are things there that DO warrant protection. Protection Utah politicians had ample time to give it, and chose not to do. This "last minute" monument was anything but that. It was a last resort after Utah politicans tried to run out the clock. 

My opinion is, leave Grand Staircase alone as it is, with no changes to its boundaries or status. As for Bears Ears open up an honest and unbiased look at the monument and make honest and unbiased recommendations on its boundaries and status. The problem is, the executive order itself shows by its time frame an intent, objectivity is going to be at a minimum.


----------



## Bax*

One Eye,

you are probably right to a certain extent about mineral extraction. The Staircase has coal beds, and uranium among other things. And perhaps there is a chance that these things could be mined some day. But I don't foresee this happening any time soon given the remoteness of the location and difficulty associated with reaching the location and maintaining the roads (if you have driven out there, you know what I mean). The main industry in the town is a saw mill which primarily receives its lumber from the Boulder Mountain area. The actual staircase is primarily covered with junipers and a few cottonwoods, nothing of true value to that industry.

Here is my big gripe with the original designation of GSE and why I am so passionate about Bears Ears: the monuments are too large. The areas that people really want to protect only represent a small piece of the overall designations and have since created an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer to manage (too large of areas to police and maintain), and it limited local residents from functioning the way they have for generations.

I am softening on the idea of keeping the monuments around, but I adamantly oppose their current size.

Attached you will find a map of the coal fields of the GSE. To the side I have boxed in an area in green. The green area represents the area that could unanimously be agreed upon as important and should rightly be protected. But the coal fields hold almost zero recreational value and see very very very little traffic as a result (the last time I drove from Escalante to Kanab, it took two tire changes to get there. Only people like me with mental disabilities go out there). The country is hot as heck, the roads are somehow designed to eat up vehicles, and the roads are clay (good luck getting outta there in the rain) in many areas. I guess my point is that even companies interested in getting to the minerals would be up against a serious fight. This country is unforgiving, but poses little value to those who spend time down there. But ranchers sure could make use of it for free ranging cattle and sheep.

I sincerely don't want to see those who live around Bears Ears experience what the residents around GSE have experienced. Their way of life was unfairly restricted by men who have never set foot in the area and will never understand what it means to live by the sweat of your brow. I doubt President Clinton or President Obama will ever set foot in these places, and yet with a stroke of a pen they completely changed hard working American's lives without ever actually spending time in these areas personally to understand the situation. Instead they built monuments to themselves by making these designations. That is the greatest travesty of all.

Finally, it is important to note that the Antiquities Act wasn't something that Clinton and Obama used, nearly every president has enacted this since President Roosevelt. While well intentioned in the beginning, it has become an opportunity for a president to leave a legacy and an overreach of power. It is actually interesting to see what President Bush designated, his monuments are amazingly large but have seen virtually no attention because they were in obscure areas that few people have access to. So even President Bush's monuments will be under scrutiny in this crazy situation.

In case you are interested in learning who designated what, please see the following link: https://www.npca.org/resources/2658...iquities-act#sm.0001g5g5fqfu9dsnwaa13vntugjul


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax I can agree with what you've said. I also agree that locals should not be so heavily restricted. Things like timber harvest and cattle grazing should be allowed to grow and be used as managment tools as needed. My problem is not giving the local people more power and opportunities to use and take advantage of the area, my problem is that I don't believe the politicians pushing this anti-monument agenda have the same goals. It seems the main goals of our politicians in this state is the pursue state ownerhship to transition to private ownership and mineral development with no regard to the giant spending and economy that is fully 100% backed by public lands and parks and monuments in this state.

As I said I'm completely open to Bears Ears being shrunk to a more reasonable size, but Grand Staircase has stood and been protected for 20 years now and will change largely if those minerals are pursued. I just wonder Bax, if an offer was made to shrink Grand Staircase the monument considerably, but mineral extraction on what is currently designated was set off limits and yet grazing and lumber were allowed among other less strict managment styles and a requirement that the land could never be transferred or sold, would local and state politicians accept that? IMO they still wouldn't be happy..

As for Bushs monuments, let's be honest, it's a game of party politics in a huge way. Had someone with a "D" next to their name designated those, they still would have fell under more scrutiny than they did. I also think despite the wide language in this executive order, it specifically targets Bears Ears and Grand Staircase and they will be the two looked at the hardest along with the Maine monument Obama designated as well. It's wide language, but it feels like this review will target some very specific monuments.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Bax* said:


> But ranchers sure could make use of it for free ranging cattle and sheep.


Could still be too if it weren't for their own greed. Most of the ranchers out there who are so adamantly opposed to the GS monument are the same ones who sold out to the Grand Canyon trust for profit. Now, they are mad that they can't run cattle out there even though they sold their AUMs.

By the way, I would be really interested to see a better map than the thumbnail you attached...I would argue that a whole lot more area out there than what is in green has recreational value.

It is also interesting to note that a lot of local support in Escalante and Boulder is starting to gain steam for keeping the Monument as is despite what the local county commissioners think. I know that local meetings in those towns have had local business owners especially come out in support of the Monument.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Monuments falling into the category = 57. Total area covered approx 300,000 sq km. (about 70% the size of California) Clinton = 19 @ 23,742 sq km, Bush = 10 @ 253,110 sq km ((250,000 sq km - Marianas trench)) Obama = 28 @ 23,086 sq km. 
How the hell do you designate 250,000 sq km as a national monument in the ocean? I wonder how much oil that locked up to allow the Saudi's to keep the prices artificially high.


----------



## PBH

Bax* said:


> The green area represents the area that could unanimously be agreed upon as important and should rightly be protected. But the coal fields hold almost zero recreational value and see very very very little traffic as a result (the last time I drove from Escalante to Kanab, it took two tire changes to get there. Only people like me with mental disabilities go out there). The country is hot as heck, the roads are somehow designed to eat up vehicles, and the roads are clay (good luck getting outta there in the rain) in many areas. I guess my point is that even companies interested in getting to the minerals would be up against a serious fight. This country is unforgiving, but poses little value to those who spend time down there. But ranchers sure could make use of it for free ranging cattle and sheep.


what?! You are nuts if you think you're the only crazy person recreating out there!

don't forget that ranchers never "lost" their grazing rights. THEY SOLD THEM. Those grazing rights are still there.

now they want them back, but for a price less than what they sold them for. Someone remind what that term is called....


----------



## Bax*

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Bax I can agree with what you've said. I also agree that locals should not be so heavily restricted. Things like timber harvest and cattle grazing should be allowed to grow and be used as managment tools as needed. My problem is not giving the local people more power and opportunities to use and take advantage of the area, my problem is that I don't believe the politicians pushing this anti-monument agenda have the same goals. It seems the main goals of our politicians in this state is the pursue state ownerhship to transition to private ownership and mineral development with no regard to the giant spending and economy that is fully 100% backed by public lands and parks and monuments in this state.
> 
> As I said I'm completely open to Bears Ears being shrunk to a more reasonable size, but Grand Staircase has stood and been protected for 20 years now and will change largely if those minerals are pursued. I just wonder Bax, if an offer was made to shrink Grand Staircase the monument considerably, but mineral extraction on what is currently designated was set off limits and yet grazing and lumber were allowed among other less strict managment styles and a requirement that the land could never be transferred or sold, would local and state politicians accept that? IMO they still wouldn't be happy..
> 
> As for Bushs monuments, let's be honest, it's a game of party politics in a huge way. Had someone with a "D" next to their name designated those, they still would have fell under more scrutiny than they did. I also think despite the wide language in this executive order, it specifically targets Bears Ears and Grand Staircase and they will be the two looked at the hardest along with the Maine monument Obama designated as well. It's wide language, but it feels like this review will target some very specific monuments.


Good point made here.

At the end of the day, politics = crooked agendas no matter whether you are D or R, but you are right that if you have the D by your name then you are more likely to face challenges in a red state.

You hit the nail on the head though, locals should be able to manage the land. I highly doubt that they will allow the land to be "raped and pillaged" as so many would have us believe.

Also, it is clear that the two Utah monuments are the source of the move. How much praise did Hatch and to a lesser extent, Lee receive from Trump during that press conference?

Another interesting byproduct of monument reduction is special interest groups such as Sierra Club and SUWA. These groups flourish off of donations made by the underinformed to try and protect cryptobiotic crust and tamarisk non proliferation (ok I made that last one up, we should all be concerned about that though). Shrinking the monuments means lower revenues for these orgs.

Its all about money no matter how we slice it.

"Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team"


----------



## PBH

wyoming2utah said:


> By the way, I would be really interested to see a better map than the thumbnail you attached...I would argue that a whole lot more area out there than what is in green has recreational value.


Here is a better picture of that map:










Note all the picture thumbnails. I think that's evidence enough that the area holds some recreational value! Hell, that's country out there is awesome! Yes, it's rugged, but with the modern conveniences like side-by-sides, it is hardly an area that people cannot access, like Bax suggested in his post.


----------



## Bax*

wyoming2utah said:


> By the way, I would be really interested to see a better map than the thumbnail you attached...I would argue that a whole lot more area out there than what is in green has recreational value.
> 
> It is also interesting to note that a lot of local support in Escalante and Boulder is starting to gain steam for keeping the Monument as is despite what the local county commissioners think. I know that local meetings in those towns have had local business owners especially come out in support of the Monument.


 That's about the only coal map I have seen. But I am sure there are more detailed / larger ones out there. But you are right, there is more area, but the area along Hole in the Rock Rd is where the majority of attention is derived.

You bring up an interesting point about local support. I have family down there and that is why I spend so much time in there, but there are a few people who have learned to make $ off of the monument through various businesses. Definitely no denying that.

The overall consensus is however that they had no input on the subject. Just some guy who had a fancy title signed a paper that flipped their lives on its ear.


----------



## Bax*

PBH said:


> what?! You are nuts if you think you're the only crazy person recreating out there!


 I know I am not the only one, but they are very very very few and far between on that side of things.

Btw - Im proud of your map. Not many people take the effort to tag those places. The dino tracks out there are pretty cool.

You been to the burning coal veins?


----------



## PBH

I have family down there too.

The Syrett's have things figured out. Others are figuring it out too. Just drive down main street in Escalante and look at how nice it looks (compared to 5 years ago). There are a few who have realized that they can make money of tourists.

The problem isn't that the economy is hurting. The problem is how many "locals" want to continue running their "hobbies" vs. running a profitable business.

I get it. Believe me. I'd love nothing more than to go ride horses every day, out in the hills, shooting things, roping cows, and just generally being outside. But the fact is that running cattle in this area is not consistently profitable without subsidies. Yet those people still want to do that. They can continue to blame the monument for that problem, or they can let "outsiders" move in and start profitable businesses.


----------



## PBH

Bax* said:


> Not many people take the effort to tag those places.
> 
> You been to the burning coal veins?


Bax -- that's my whole point. I think you underestimate the number of people that frequent that area!

FWIW -- those points were simply points of reference for W2U to get his bearings with the Google Earth snap. Yes, I've been to the burning veins. I've been in the monkey house. I've stayed at the Griffin cabin on the fifty. I've entered the German caves with smaller version of Noah's Ark. I've messed around the cabin at Tommy Canyon.

While I certainly haven't spent as much time on that desert as I'd like, I have made a couple trips out on it. Like many others -- others who I'm sure want to continue to hunt, ride, hike, and explore in the future.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So Bax I can agree it was a large swath of land signed in by a pen, but the truth is, that is the main reason locals hate the idea of the monument. They hate it because a democratic president declared the area a monument win the stroke of a pen. Truth is the area has benefitted from the monument in many ways, and those willing to cash in on those benefits are the ones who are willing to make things work rather than sit on their hands and complain. If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten. Sorry but if they sold their AUMs, that was their choice, theycant expect them back just because now they want them back. The amount of government welfare to keep cattle operations profitable in this state is mind boggling, not to mention the subsidized grazing rates and backseat wildlife take in many cases. I am more sympathetic to the lumber industry in the area and would absolutely support more lumber harvest in the area. I don't support mineral development. There are far more acres open to drilling and mining in this state than the 1.9 million acres that's off limits on the GS. I get multiple use, and it should be the managment strategy on 90% of or public lands, but there are places that need to stay untouched and left alone, now sometimes that may be in someone's backyard and it may inconvience them, but what's better for the future, the wildlife, and the landscape is not always convenient, but sometimes it's still the right thing to do. It's rugged but amazing country, and I love going there every year.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

> "There are very few antiquities in that 1.8 million acres, but what there is are meaningful coal reserves, and it is clean coal," he said.
> 
> At the very least, Stewart said, boundaries at Grand Staircase-Escalante need to be adjusted.
> 
> "We want to look at redefining the boundaries and making some of these resources available, while at the same time protecting habitat and some of these antiquities that are truly worthy of protection," he said.


Quote from Chris Stewart on Grand Staircase. Sure seems to me like it's that coal they want. I guess places that have coal reserves are not truly worthy of protection. The semis rolling through new roads are going to have far greater impacts than the trashy hippies. If the boundaries are scaled back, I have no doubts they'll go full boar to try and mine the area. It's why they want it. The area untouched is worthless in the eyes of our states politicians and that's the sad truth. It seems to me every time they speak of GS it's always the coal. It isn't about grazing, it isn't about timber, it's always about oil, gas, or coal with little regard to the long term impacts both on the landscape and the long term outlook of the economy. Without a doubt our country needs coal, and I support coal mining and know plenty of people who's livelihoods depend on it, but the monument has brought a diversification to the economy for those who were willing to accept it. If you truly believe mining isn't what they have in mind, you have much more faith in our representative who have hammered nothing but oil and coal as a reasonable rural economy their entire political career.


----------



## Bax*

I do have to laugh about one conundrum oxymoron here: these monument lands that are in federal control, if de-listed (is that the correct terminology?) would be immediately turned over to.... the feds. 

Federal land relinquished to the BLM?

I dunno. Seems confusing. 

Although I do believe it eliminates some restrictions it's a funny situation.


----------



## paddler

*"There are very few antiquities in that 1.8 million acres, but what there is are meaningful coal reserves, and it is clean coal," he said.

At the very least, Stewart said, boundaries at Grand Staircase-Escalante need to be adjusted.

"We want to look at redefining the boundaries and making some of these resources available, while at the same time protecting habitat and some of these antiquities that are truly worthy of protection," he said.
*
Wonder what he means by "clean coal". Nobody's ever explained that to me. Cleaner than natural gas, or wind, or solar, or even oil?


----------



## Critter

paddler said:


> Wonder what he means by "clean coal". Nobody's ever explained that to me. Cleaner than natural gas, or wind, or solar, or even oil?


I don't remember all the particulars but the coal in the west burns cleaner than the coal in the east and is the preferred type of coal to be burnt in powerhouses. It could be because of a higher BTU output than other regions.


----------



## Bax*

British Thermal Unit


----------



## Bax*

Bax* said:


> British Thermal Unit


I just find that funny. Dunno why.


----------



## PBH

I think a really big problem in that area right now is misconception: a view or opinion that is incorrect because it is based on faulty thinking or understanding.

Let me explain.

In 1999 my father in law finally decided it was time to sell the last of his cows. It was not a profitable business. With the newly created monument, his grazing permits (yes, he still owned those permits and still ran cattle on the monument) became more valuable than running the cows. So he sold those permits. They were not taken from him. This was a significant lifestyle change for my wife's family.

I had a conversation with my brother-in-law in February of this year (2017). He was furious over the Bears Ears and hoping that the GSNM would get rescinded under Trump's watch. I told him he was crazy -- and mentioned how many deer our family has killed on the GSNM. I asked him about his boys and whether he ever wondered if they'd get to hunt those same places we currently hunt? He replied by saying "you didn't have to grow up wondering if you'd have anything to eat at your next meal. You didn't have to grow up knowing that you didn't have any cows to sell because the government took your grazing permits away. It's easy for you to look at the monument favorably because it didn't destroy your family's livelihood...".

Wow. I had to explain to him that his family's permits were not "taken". Rather, his father sold them. He didn't believe me.

Further, I don't recollect those years when his family struggled financially to put food on the table. In fact, I recall good times. My wife never recalls those struggles either.

Today, I know my father-in-law misses running cows. But he doesn't miss the work. He just misses the "hobbie" side of cattle. Being outside, riding horses, and enjoying the outdoors. He still loves that country -- that area currently consumed by the GSNM. They recreate in that country all year long. They thrive financially due to the tourism that Monument brings to their area. They cuss tourists up one side, and down the other -- but they don't hesitate to take their money.

I think, like my brother-in-law, that many people in that area have a huge misconception about that Monument. I think he hears people complain about it, talking about the "government stealing their land" and their cattle operations, and eventually you start believing it whether it's true or not. If you keep telling yourself something over and over and over, eventually it becomes "true" whether it is factual or not.

I like the Monument. My wife likes it -- it got her out of herding cows. We recreate on it all the time. Her family continues to thrive due to the tourism it brings to that area. That monument changed their lives, and while they gripe and complain and moan and grumble and fuss over the monument, they thrive because of it.

I hope it never changes.


----------



## Catherder

Great post, PBH.

I can't help but think that the Monument (and the Gubmint) gets blamed down there for problems facing all small towns. Here is an article I recently read that talks about that more.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060040270

My in-laws live in Delta. The immediate surrounding area is largely private farm land. They even have IPP nearby. However, Delta also is struggling with decreasing school enrollment, (one of their elementary schools is now shuttered) and economic concerns. It is largely similar throughout rural America. However, in Southern Utah, it is easy to blame the Gubmint and their actions, so they do.


----------



## Critter

The problem with Delta is that no one wants to hang around and farm. IPP was great while it was being built but takes very few to keep it operating. There will be a few that will move into town when and if they convert it over to gas but then they will be gone. 

The southern area where a stroke of a pen created these Presidential monuments are facing really the same thing. There is nothing to really make money on. You can farm or work for the Park Service, nothing else. Even if they were to start mining coal in the area another President can come in and with a stroke of a pen almost eliminate their jobs. But with China and Japan purchasing US coal you never know. 

I agree that we need to protect these and other areas but a President just signing a order just doesn't sit right with me. I think that it should go through a process looking at everything and not just a monument to the President.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Critter said:


> . There is nothing to really make money on.


I totally disagree....money, as many are finding out and cashing in on, can be made on what makes those places truly great--the landscapes, the wilderness, the remoteness, and the ruggedness of the country down there. Looking at Escalante, it is not dying, it is thriving! All you have to do is look at the changes made and the businesses that have come in...


----------



## Bax*

wyoming2utah said:


> I totally disagree....money, as many are finding out and cashing in on, can be made on what makes those places truly great--the landscapes, the wilderness, the remoteness, and the ruggedness of the country down there. Looking at Escalante, it is not dying, it is thriving! All you have to do is look at the changes made and the businesses that have come in...


 I guess it all depends on perspective here. Some businesses have died. Some have sprouted up. Others have evolved.

I cant decide if the economy is any better off than it once was, but it doesn't seem like it has gotten worse.


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> Great post, PBH.
> 
> I can't help but think that the Monument (and the Gubmint) gets blamed down there for problems facing all small towns. Here is an article I recently read that talks about that more.
> 
> https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060040270
> 
> My in-laws live in Delta. The immediate surrounding area is largely private farm land. They even have IPP nearby. However, Delta also is struggling with decreasing school enrollment, (one of their elementary schools is now shuttered) and economic concerns. It is largely similar throughout rural America. However, in Southern Utah, it is easy to blame the Gubmint and their actions, so they do.


Thanks for posting the article. I felt like it was a pretty good point/counterpoint delineation of both sides of the issue from a local perspective. It does seem that some don't like the feeling of the changes, but the net result has been positive, or at least no worse than before..

Interesting to really see that the shuttering of the sawmill in Escalante had more to do with the loss of stable jobs than the Monument creation.

I think it's fine that people don't like the way it was designated, but to ignore the value of it's preservation and it's future potential, is looking at things strictly emotionally in my opinion.


----------



## PBH

Bax* said:


> I guess it all depends on perspective here. Some businesses have died. Some have sprouted up. Others have evolved.
> 
> I cant decide if the economy is any better off than it once was, but it doesn't seem like it has gotten worse.


I would probably agree with this ^^

it is evolving. Some are making adjustments and taking advantage while others continue to do the same things of those before them and struggle.

While school enrollment continues to go down, other businesses and homes go up. While young families move away to find employment opportunities in areas they feel they can raise a family, retirees are moving in and finding ways to capitalize on a life of leisure.


----------



## Bax*

Totally random and not fully related, but if any of you are looking for an interesting story, I would encourage a look into Everett Ruess' disappearance near GSE. There have been some pretty interesting theories regarding the situation.

The link below has several pages to it, but the story is quite interesting:

http://adventure.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/everett-ruess/david-roberts-text


----------



## Critter

Yep, as the family farms and ranches get sold off to people from out of state they come and build their fancy retirement homes and stick the "No Trespassing" signs up all over areas that a lot of people used to hunt and enjoy, even the locals.

And what business are you talking about? The filling station and quickie mart? 

I was just through the Boulder area last fall and really didn't see much economic development other than a couple of overpriced lodges and filling station.


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> Paddler pointed out something that most of us republicans continue to ignore concerning the designation: Obama gave Congress plenty of time to do something concerning the Bears Ears. Nothing happened. It was only after nothing happened that the designation went through. We cannot sit here and complain about this "last minute" designation. There are consequences to not following through with instruction.


This is false. I'm not ignoring that at all. I fully understand what has happened along the way, and I didn't like Bishop's plan at all. And what was so wrong with what was happening on the Bears Ears area in December? I'm trying to figure out why the last 150 years hasn't worked? People continue to act like that if this designation did not happen, the state would have the lands and sell them immediately. That just isn't true. At least not in the immediate time frame.

And you've never heard me talk about a "last minute designation" at all. I complain about ALL executive designations. Call me old fashioned, but I believe the constitution is kind of an important document, and each branch of the government should only have the power granted to it by the constitution. After all, that was the intent. Sorry for waxing poetic. I know, my kind is a dying breed.



PBH said:


> 'Nilla -- I'm not following you. If the area is reduced, and a new mining / drilling / grazing / etc. lease is allowed on that specific area the first thing we'll see is a fence with a "No Trespassing" sign attached to it. How would that not affect sportsman access?
> .


Certainly a possibility. One I do not like, to be quite frank. But not a sure thing, either.


----------



## Bax*

I don't know enough about the Bear's Ears area as I would like to. I have been through the area and spent a short time there, but that is all.

What natural resources are available for mining in the area?

Vanilla, I follow your school of thought. Things were fine before the designations, what was so important that these areas suddenly needed to be "protected"?

I will however say that some of PBH's arguments make sense. I don't know if I agree or disagree with all of his thoughts, but he does make some valid arguments.

There are so many facets associated with these monument designations.

But one thing I don't feel is realistic is the idea of the states suddenly parceling out the land and selling it off. I just cant see that happening.


----------



## Catherder

A few comments;

1.


Critter said:


> The problem with Delta is that no one wants to hang around and farm.


The same can be said about anywhere in rural America. It applies in the monument areas. Yet, it somehow is the government's fault. Curiously, some of Grandpas neighbors have been doing well the past few years, farming, based on the new homes they built for themselves. It isn't all gloom and doom in agriculture.

2.


Critter said:


> IPP was great while it was being built but takes very few to keep it operating. There will be a few that will move into town when and if they convert it over to gas but then they will be gone.


IPP is certainly a help to the economy there, as it still provides many jobs. (Gpa retired from there) The plan to convert it to gas is what we are hearing too. A point that is relevant to this particular discussion, don't you think?

3.


Critter said:


> The southern area where a stroke of a pen created these Presidential monuments are facing really the same thing. There is nothing to really make money on. You can farm or work for the Park Service, nothing else.


While you may disagree, I would strongly add tourism and the recreation sector, as we've been talking about! For whatever woes the Garfield county commissioners may whine about, there are new stores and restaurants going in Escalante and they are profitable. Delta? We just lost another store and the pizza place my family liked is gone. The dollars tourism/recreation brings in cannot be ignored. However, as PBH has said, it isn't a type of job that aligns with "our way of life" so these jobs are devalued down there by many.

4.


Critter said:


> But with China and Japan purchasing US coal you never know.


I posted this on another thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Utah better not count on selling a lot of coal to Asia as they plan for the future.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> Certainly a possibility. One I do not like, to be quite frank. But not a sure thing, either.


so, what is a sure thing? IF we do have a monument designation those lands cannot be sold off....

....I don't like dealing with uncertainties!


----------



## Vanilla

Bax* said:


> I will however say that some of PBH's arguments make sense. I don't know if I agree or disagree with all of his thoughts, but he does make some valid arguments.


Absolutely! PBH has a handle on this issue. His position is based upon experience and sound logic, not team politics. I respect his opinion, even if we don't see eye to eye on every one of the considerations.



Bax* said:


> But one thing I don't feel is realistic is the idea of the states suddenly parceling out the land and selling it off. I just cant see that happening.


It would be part of the master plan. But one small fallacy that many are ignoring...they still have to get ownership of it first. Let's say hypothetically that Bears Ears is rescinded (I do not believe it will be), the state does not own the land. Go figure, huh? Not exactly what ORI or some other groups or even individuals on here would have you believe.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Critter said:


> I was just through the Boulder area last fall and really didn't see much economic development other than a couple of overpriced lodges and filling station.


Did you go through Escalante? http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2908495-155/op-ed-escalante-is-on-the-rise


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> I don't remember all the particulars but the coal in the west burns cleaner than the coal in the east and is the preferred type of coal to be burnt in powerhouses. It could be because of a higher BTU output than other regions.


My question was rhetorical. There is no "clean coal". Anthracite coal has the highest carbon content and lowest sulfur content, but all coal contains sulfur, all types release particulate matter, all needs to have their chimney's scrubbed when burned. As far as I can tell, anthracite coal reserves are mostly in Pennsylvania, most coal in Utah is the lower quality bituminous type. So, Stewart's comments are misleading at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.

As far as Bears Ears goes, I favor protection. People ask what's wrong with the way things are as an argument against protection. Well, the way things are will likely result in development of these sensitive areas. The fact that they have not yet been developed is no guarantee they won't be. Only a monument designation will protect against spoiling these lands.


----------



## Critter

wyoming2utah said:


> Did you go through Escalante? http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2908495-155/op-ed-escalante-is-on-the-rise


After reading the article what else would you expect the president of the Escalante-Boulder Chamber of Commerce to say?

He also stated in another paragraph that he would like to see year round employment. As for the business lets see what happens 5-10 years down the road and see if they can sustain and keep them open with the seasonal work force. I have seen a lot of stores that open with this kind of hope only to see them close when they realize that they can't sustain themselves on seasonal work and workers.

I myself would like to see these towns go back to the way that they were in the 60's, but I also know that you can't stop progress and that everything changes over time and that you can never go back. I just hope that it does work out for them.



paddler said:


> My question was rhetorical. There is no "clean coal".


I was just comparing the western coal to the eastern coal. Perhaps "clean coal" wasn't the term that should of been used but perhaps "cleaner coal" might of been better.

But sooner or later I believe that the coal will be mined. Perhaps not now but as the gas supplies dwindle and it's price goes up where coal is again a bargain and newer technology comes out that will allow it to burn cleaner.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> After reading the article what else would you expect the president of the Escalante-Boulder Chamber of Commerce to say?
> 
> He also stated in another paragraph that he would like to see year round employment. As for the business lets see what happens 5-10 years down the road and see if they can sustain and keep them open with the seasonal work force. I have seen a lot of stores that open with this kind of hope only to see them close when they realize that they can't sustain themselves on seasonal work and workers.
> 
> I myself would like to see these towns go back to the way that they were in the 60's, but I also know that you can't stop progress and that everything changes over time and that you can never go back. I just hope that it does work out for them.
> 
> I was just comparing the western coal to the eastern coal. Perhaps "clean coal" wasn't the term that should of been used but perhaps "cleaner coal" might of been better.
> 
> But sooner or later I believe that the coal will be mined. Perhaps not now but as the gas supplies dwindle and it's price goes up where coal is again a bargain and newer technology comes out that will allow it to burn cleaner.


If anything, Pennsylvania coal is cleaner than Utah coal. Neither is clean, despite the BS from those who want coal to come back. It may become economically feasible at some point in the future, but I wouldn't have my grandkids hold their breath. There's a lot of natural gas out there, cleaner to obtain, cleaner to burn and cheaper.


----------



## Catherder

FWIW, the coal in GSENM and other mines down there is low sulfur coal and is indeed considered more "clean" than most of the coal back East. Wyoming and Colorado also have low sulfur coal. 

That said, I'm still highly pessimistic of coal being a gateway to prosperity for Utah, as I have written at length here and elsewhere. (not that anyone read any of it ;-) )


----------



## Bax*

Catherder said:


> FWIW, the coal in GSENM and other mines down there is low sulfur coal and is indeed considered more "clean" than most of the coal back East. Wyoming and Colorado also have low sulfur coal.
> 
> That said, I'm still highly pessimistic of coal being a gateway to prosperity for Utah, as I have written at length here and elsewhere. (not that anyone read any of it ;-) )


I agree. I don't think that the ROI would be all that great to mine coal from this area, especially when coal is already under attack by environmentalist groups. Further more, the land is highly highly highly likely to remain in BLM possession (not State controlled) and will therefore remain under the watchful eyes of special interest groups to ensure that things like this don't happen.

But who knows, with all the fun stuff going on with N. Korea, maybe the uranium will come in handy.....

Back on point, I don't see much changing from a sportsman's standpoint. As far as I understand it, sheep hunts have not been affected (correct me if I am wrong on this) and I would imagine that they will still continue with no new changes in the foreseeable future.

All hypotheticals at this point, so who really knows what will happen?

Maybe Garkane Power will build a plant on top of Calf Creek and haul coal in for its coal burning power plant while mining uranium to build a reactor to power Tselakai Dezza.


----------



## middlefork

Interesting article the other day.
If this is true it will be interesting to see the logic behind any resizing.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5222339-155/op-ed-hatch-doesnt-tell-the-truth#undefined.uxfs


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> Interesting article the other day.
> If this is true it will be interesting to see the logic behind any resizing.
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5222339-155/op-ed-hatch-doesnt-tell-the-truth#undefined.uxfs


And another. Hatch is a baldfaced liar:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5231017-155/gehrke-trumps-review-of-monuments-a

Also, anybody see this one? I like Gehrke's stuff:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5218180-155/gehrke-column-what-would-jason-chaffetzs


----------



## middlefork

Here was an interesting proposal.
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/1936-proposed-enm-map.pdf


----------



## Bax*

middlefork said:


> Here was an interesting proposal.
> https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/1936-proposed-enm-map.pdf


Interesting indeed. Never seen that before.


----------



## OriginalOscar

middlefork said:


> Here was an interesting proposal.
> https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/1936-proposed-enm-map.pdf


Looks like a plan if Dark Canyon dam site had developed.


----------



## Catherder

A couple more links on why betting on future coal production is probably not wise, economically.

http://www.powermag.com/natural-gas-and-wind-are-cheapest-sources-of-power-in-majority-of-u-s/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/moderate-republicans-are-flexing-their-muscles/

(Second link, read last paragraph and table at bottom.)

Quote from the first link.

" *Notably, coal-fired generation was not the cheapest option in any county when externalities were considered.* Incoming president-elect Donald Trump has promised to revitalize the U.S. coal industry, though most experts suggest there is little he can do over the long term because of a range of macroeconomic trends that are working against coal-fired power."

Yet, our politicians seem to want to tear up our wildlands and screw the outdoor industry in order to chase imaginary jobs in a declining industry sector.


----------



## Bax*

I really don't see a future in coal for so many reasons.

True, it is cheap to produce energy but not the cheapest. Strike one.

International pressures to reduce CO2 emissions are already underway. Strike two.

Too many special interest groups petition to eliminate or mitigate mining, use, production, or export of said coal. Strike three.

The arguments against coal are beginning to become more and more prevalent (some logical, others bat-shiz crazy). Social pressures are driving change.

Speaking of social pressures - I find it funny to hear people say "I bought an electric car to reduce my carbon footprint." and then they go home and plug their car in to charge for the night. They charge this car with electricity created by coal burning facilities.... Does anyone else find that funny?

On a random note, if you are at all interested to learn about the nuclear fuel issue in Japan, take a look here: http://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/Nuclear-fuel-likely-melted-through-Fukushima-reactor-vessel That is scary stuff!


----------



## paddler

Well, Zinke will visit this week. We'll see what he says. There was a recent thread discussing what he'll do, some are hopeful. I, for one, am not optimistic that he'll leave our monuments alone. Is he a western conservationist or political hack who speaks with forked tongue?


----------



## grizzly

Bax* said:


> Speaking of social pressures - I find it funny to hear people say "I bought an electric car to reduce my carbon footprint." and then they go home and plug their car in to charge for the night. They charge this car with electricity created by coal burning facilities.... Does anyone else find that funny?


I've even said to people that bought an electric car, "Oh, you bought a coal-powered car, cool."

That always makes their mouth drop.


----------



## Huge29

Bax* said:


> True, it is cheap to produce energy but not the cheapest. Strike one.
> 
> International pressures to reduce CO2 emissions are already underway. Strike two.
> 
> Too many special interest groups petition to eliminate or mitigate mining, use, production, or export of said coal. Strike three.
> 
> The arguments against coal are beginning to become more and more prevalent (some logical, others bat-shiz crazy). Social pressures are driving change.


It really is very very efficient that is the reason that it is the most widely used. Certainly natural gas has been cheaper at times, but the prices are just all over the place, so very volatile. For a utility it is easier to justify a steady higher price vs a lower average price but they have to change rates really often. 
Coal from back east is much dirtier than our coal out west. 
Nuclear is all but here in Green River, it will certainly take several years to get it built, but at this point Blue Castle has already cleared what are normally the biggest hurdles, should only be an issue of financing at this point. IT is crazy how expensive the staffing it is, they report they need like 500 full time employees, mainly safety people. I certainly believe in diversity. there are also two solar plants that should be coming to Carbon County here in the very near future. It is funny how it creates numerous enviro issues too, beyond the obvious fact of how much coal powered energy is needed to manufacture all of the panels...


----------



## middlefork

I ran into this link today and found it interesting. There is a great link on the bottom of the page in regards to the difference between a NCA and National Monument.

http://www.danransom.com/2017/01/bears-ears-is-too-big/

Also I understand the coal on the GSEM but can anybody point any studies of viable mineral or oil deposits on the BENM?

I wonder how the grand tour is going today?


----------



## Kwalk3

middlefork said:


> I ran into this link today and found it interesting. There is a great link on the bottom of the page in regards to the difference between a NCA and National Monument.
> 
> http://www.danransom.com/2017/01/bears-ears-is-too-big/
> 
> Also I understand the coal on the GSEM but can anybody point any studies of viable mineral or oil deposits on the BENM?
> 
> I wonder how the grand tour is going today?


Rob Bishop in jean shorts and Gov. Herbert are leading the tour, if that gives you any indication.










Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

Kwalk3 said:


> Rob Bishop in jean shorts and Gov. Herbert are leading the tour, if that gives you any indication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Welp, not hard from that pic to see how this is going to go.................


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder, my thoughts exactly. Not that I really expected anything different, but it certainly appears that this "review" is likely to be a bit biased in it's considerations.


----------



## middlefork

You think?
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060054139
"The Bureau of Land Management has told members of its 30 resource advisory councils (RACs) to postpone scheduled meetings through at least September as part of the new national review of Interior's advisory panels, both internal and external.

That includes canceling meetings of six other BLM advisory committees affiliated with specific sites within the agency's National Conservation Lands system, as well as two other high-profile panels: the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board and the North Slope Science Initiative Science Technical Advisory Panel in Alaska.

It also affects other panels, such as the National Park System Advisory Board, which advises the NPS director and Interior secretary "on matters relating to the National Park Service, the National Park System, and programs administered by the National Park Service," including the Antiquities Act, which has been targeted by GOP congressional leaders.

The timing means some land management recommendations - including a high-profile review of national monuments - will be completed without the advisory panels' input."


----------



## Kwalk3

middlefork said:


> You think?
> https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060054139
> "The Bureau of Land Management has told members of its 30 resource advisory councils (RACs) to postpone scheduled meetings through at least September as part of the new national review of Interior's advisory panels, both internal and external.
> 
> That includes canceling meetings of six other BLM advisory committees affiliated with specific sites within the agency's National Conservation Lands system, as well as two other high-profile panels: the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board and the North Slope Science Initiative Science Technical Advisory Panel in Alaska.
> 
> It also affects other panels, such as the National Park System Advisory Board, which advises the NPS director and Interior secretary "on matters relating to the National Park Service, the National Park System, and programs administered by the National Park Service," including the Antiquities Act, which has been targeted by GOP congressional leaders.
> 
> The timing means some land management recommendations - including a high-profile review of national monuments - will be completed without the advisory panels' input."


SAD!


----------



## paddler

So, it looks like we'll have conservation by administration. Democrats will work to preserve public lands, protect our air and water quality, Republicans will work on behalf of polluters and despoilers. And the beat goes on......


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> So, it looks like we'll have conservation by administration. Democrats will work to preserve public lands, protect our air and water quality, Republicans will work on behalf of polluters and despoilers. And the beat goes on......


Democrats = Politics of Labels


----------



## Catherder

OriginalOscar said:


> Democrats = Politics of Labels


Like "do gooder"?


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Democrats = Politics of Labels


Just giving the Republicans the credit they're due, double zero. Simple enough.

I can see the next Democratic president restoring the monuments. Hopefully on day one.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Just giving the Republicans the credit they're due, double zero. Simple enough.
> 
> I can see the next Democratic president restoring the monuments. Hopefully on day one.


This is partly why I think the current political apparatus of choice "the executive order" is such a poor tool in its current frequency of use. I'd rather see a compromise, and a semi-permanent piece of legislation instead of signing and undoing executive orders every 4, 8, or 21 years.

Also, both parties pull their fair share of shenanigans and the Dems don't necessarily have our best interests at heart either. True, the purposes are aligned currently, but neither party is headed in a pro-hunting direction. I'm not as willing to paint with such a broad brush on either side.

But yeah, public lands are good. Monuments aren't necessarily a bad thing.....etc., etc.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Huge29

Finally some common sense, the whole abuse of executive orders is a sham. Using a very old law meant to protect rare antiquities. The person who signed it never even came to see it, never even flew over it and nor did the previous democrat president doing the same. Anyone liking that part of it simply doesn't understand how this republic is meant to work. The ends do not justify the means. On the other hand you have a guy here to truly review what has happened with first hand reviews and discussions rather than just back door deals with donors. No matter what the result is for or against your biased political view this certainly is not the way things were meant to be done.


----------



## PBH

Huge29 said:


> On the other hand you have a guy here to truly review what has happened with first hand reviews and discussions rather than just back door deals with donors.


You sure about that?

who are the first hand reviews being done with?
who are the discussions being held with?

And, speaking of back door deals with donors: who's leading this tour of the monuments?


----------



## Vanilla

Team sports politics rule the day for some, and that is truly all that matters for them. They couldn't care less about the issues. 

While we're painting with the broad brush, it was the republicans, after all, that had to defeat the democrats to end slavery and give women the right to vote. Republicans on percentage were more likely to vote for the Civil Rights laws in the 60s. So democrats love public lands, but hate black people and women. Duly noted. I'm glad we can get that all figured out on where the parties stand. 

Now, back to the task at hand. Suppose the Bears Ears Monument is rescinded, just for the sake of argument. Where are we at? Are the oil rigs immediately going to dot every ridge? Is the land being put up for sale this summer? Or are we simply the exact same as we are today...federal public lands available for all of us to use?


----------



## PBH

well.....the Lyman family has already made numerous large land purchases, one specifically bordering the Bear's Ears. How long will it be before they make their next purchase after the land is rescinded?


Note: I did say "is rescinded". I think it is pretty evident which direction this is going.
It won't be long before parcels of that former monument are deemed "worthless" and sent to the auction block for big money players like Lyman Family Farms, or other private interests, to gobble. up.


----------



## Kwalk3

PBH said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> who are the first hand reviews being done with?
> who are the discussions being held with?
> 
> And, speaking of back door deals with donors: who's leading this tour of the monuments?


 You mean these upstanding defenders of public land and public access aren't who you would choose to lead the tour?









Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Now, back to the task at hand. Suppose the Bears Ears Monument is rescinded, just for the sake of argument. Where are we at?


Fair enough question.

1. Hunting and fishing use doesn't change, near term, just as my first reply to this thread long ago said. It didn't change with the designation either. But I can think of a few more items.

2. With monument status stripped away, it becomes that much easier for the land grab politicians to scheme to sell off parcels of this land.

3. I am sure Bishop, Sherbert, Noel,and "the boys" are emboldened to further push their land grab aims with the current administration. Hopefully, opposition is similarly getting ramped up to fight them.

4. I am certain the outdoor retailers are happier than ever in their decision to leave Utah, as the state, once again, shows their intentions to "stick it" to the "infrastructure" of their industry, public lands.

5. Since Bears ears is brand new, I don't think there has been much economic change, good or bad, in surrounding communities. However, if GSENM is rescinded or curtailed, I would predict a net economic loss there, as they simply aren't going to be able to get a ton of money and jobs from coal, as we've covered at length here, and tourism will likely decline.

I am sure there are more factors, but I have to get back to work.


----------



## PBH

Vanilla said:


> Now, back to the task at hand. Suppose the Bears Ears Monument is rescinded, just for the sake of argument. Where are we at?


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

It's already happened even with the monument status. Without the monument, it will just increase in volume.


----------



## Dunkem

I'm a tad confused on the native american point of view, seems some want it to stay as is, and some want it rescended?


----------



## LostLouisianian

I'm part Native American, my wife is part Native American, my children are part Native American, my grandchildren are part Native American and NO ONE has reached out to us to get our opinion. So I can clearly say that the "Native Americans" voicing their opinions do not speak for all Native Americans.


----------



## Critter

On the Native American side of things and without doing any research on it I am sure that the Southern Ute's have discussed it in detail since they will be the ones mostly affected by it.


----------



## Bax*

Catherder said:


> 5. Since Bears ears is brand new, I don't think there has been much economic change, good or bad, in surrounding communities. However, if GSENM is rescinded or curtailed, I would predict a net economic loss there, as they simply aren't going to be able to get a ton of money and jobs from coal, as we've covered at length here, and tourism will likely decline.


 I'd be interested in getting your insight on this a little further. Not saying you are right or wrong, nor am I right or wrong but here is my take on the situation.

_IF_ the monument is rescinded (highly unlikely, more likely to be reduced in size from my perspective), I would hypothesize that the feared coal mining will not happen and will not create new industry as this land is still controlled by the Federal Govt not the state which means that the feared land grab will not take place unless somehow all Federal lands are returned to state control (imagine the costs associated with management from a state standpoint). So coal seems a moot subject in my eyes, but I have been known to be wrong.

Tourism will likely not see much change as the attractions will stay in place and mining will not occur in those areas.

My guess is that the monument will shrink in size but not be abolished, the economics will likely not change, and this will all be much adieu about nothing. But it will cost either the red or the blue side face value depending on perspective.

Long term, if the monuments are reduced in size I see a tiny hope of change in things in GSNEM because the town of Escalante has already shrank in size. Kids have moved away in hopes of different careers, ranching isn't as prevalent as it once was, and unless coal really does take off (which I highly doubt), it'll just keep on keepin on.


----------



## PBH

Bax* said:


> Long term, if the monuments are reduced in size I see a tiny hope of change in things in GSNEM because the town of Escalante has remained constant in size. Kids have moved away in hopes of different careers, while retireees have moved in starting flourishing tourism business. Ranching isn't as prevalent as it once was, but that's not due to the monument but rather simple economics. Coal isn't the future, and logging just can't make it - again, nothing to do with the monument. I think it'll just keep on keepin on.


fixed a few things for you.


----------



## Bax*

PBH said:


> fixed a few things for you.


 Ha!


----------



## Catherder

Bax* said:


> I'd be interested in getting your insight on this a little further. Not saying you are right or wrong, nor am I right or wrong but here is my take on the situation.


Sure, now on lunch break.;-)

Obviously, the economic impact will vary based on whether the monument is rescinded or not, and if reduced, by how much. A few parcels at the margins will have far less impact than a 50% slashing. Anyway, here is why I said what I did.

1. Prior to the monument designation, an active tourism industry there was not nearly what it is now, if present at all. So the designation itself can be shown to be a stimulus for tourism. It is a sort of "free advertising" and once there the tourists don't go away disappointed as the country is amazing. If that label and "cachet" go away, the businesses there will still be able to serve existing clients "in the know", but the loss of monument "reputation" will make it a harder sell for newer tourists and growth that all businesses need.

2. Will the type of tourist that likes to go to GSENM accept a lot of development there if the monument is trimmed? Development does not have to be just extraction industries. It can also be a bunch of newly paved roads and a spagetti bowl of recently blazed ATV trails. It can also be a bunch of cowpies everywhere. I suspect many of these 'granola" type tourists that like the remoteness down there will elect to visit elsewhere if things are overly utilized or degraded, in their view.

3. Just as the outdoor retailers bailed on Utah based on stated principle, I suspect that a segment of the public will react negatively to what Utah and Trump is pursuing and will voice their displeasure with their wallets. From what I know of folks that love to explore slot canyons and go off the grid for a week, a lot of these folks lean left politically. I suspect backlash will be genuine and hurt the local tourist industry.

4. We both agree that the slack won't be made up by extraction industries, ranching, or logging.


----------



## middlefork

+1 Catherder.
Just the publicity generated with the ongoing debate has put both BE and GSENM on a lot of people's radar.

And those same people will begin to do what they do to other areas, love them to death until the next "new" area draws them there.

IMHO the damage was already done when the public debate started.

I've been really lucky to be ahead of the curve of popularity on both areas and activities to enjoy before the publicity starts a slow death spiral.

But to me less people is better than more. Hard to support the economy in Blanding when they don't even sell beer


----------



## paddler

Labels aren't inherently bad, they're just shorthand for sets of values, beliefs, and favored policies. My values and how I stand on many issues make me a Democrat, not vice versa. I chuckle when people employ the tired argument that today's Republican party bears even a faint resemblance of the GOP a century and more ago. 

Today's Republican party is not the party of Roosevelt, one of the most prolific and forceful conservationists in our history. He wouldn't support a party that would have Scott Pruitt, who sued the EPA on behalf of the Koch brothers a dozen times, lead the EPA. Roosevelt would have designated the Bears Ears, and probably the entire 1.9 million acres, just as he designated the Grand Canyon National Monument. No way he woulds reduce or rescind it. Present day Republicans are the party of exploiters and polluters, who simply cannot stomach the idea that public lands should be preserved for future generations. You see that play out every day, and it's playing out in Utah right now. Nor is today's Republican party the party of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. They are now the party of voter suppression, discrimination based on religion, and white supremacy. It is no longer the Grand Old Party. It is now the party of Trump, anti-environment, anti-public lands, anti-sportsmen, pro-extraction. Good luck with that. See, labels can indeed be helpful.


----------



## Huge29

PBH said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> who are the first hand reviews being done with?
> who are the discussions being held with?
> 
> And, speaking of back door deals with donors: who's leading this tour of the monuments?


Did you miss the news that Zinke has been for the last three days? What exactly was the previous administration's level of due diligence on site? According to MOnticello's manager who I know personally it was a 30 minute meeting via a teleconference I think he said. Zinke has met with numerous tribal groups and is actually touring the area via horseback and helicopter and sharing some awesome pics along the way. I am amazed at how scared some people are of due diligence and fact finding, what are you so afraid of? Someone making an educated decision? It is some pretty areas I can certainly see some merit in a designation of some of this area. Hopefully enlightenment may happen resulting in some well thought-out decisions considering all stakeholders. Heaven forbid we keep our minds open and see the whole forest rather than our own little left leaning tree.


----------



## paddler

Huge29 said:


> Did you miss the news that Zinke has been for the last three days? What exactly was the previous administration's level of due diligence on site? According to MOnticello's manager who I know personally it was a 30 minute meeting via a teleconference I think he said. Zinke has met with numerous tribal groups and is actually touring the area via horseback and helicopter and sharing some awesome pics along the way. I am amazed at how scared some people are of due diligence and fact finding, what are you so afraid of? Someone making an educated decision? It is some pretty areas I can certainly see some merit in a designation of some of this area. Hopefully enlightenment may happen resulting in some well thought-out decisions considering all stakeholders. Heaven forbid we keep our minds open and see the whole forest rather than our own little left leaning tree.


Are you kidding? Your post is incredible, and by that I mean absolutely untrue and so beyond credulity. Did you miss Sally Jewell's visit when she was Interior Secretary? I believe she spent several days here before Obama acted because Congress couldn't get their act together. It was in all the papers. Oh, here's an article on it:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5216776-155/jewell-defends-bears-ears-monument-process

Due diligence was undertaken, and the monument was appropriately designated. I don't care who you know personally, the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## Kwalk3

Huge29 said:


> Did you miss the news that Zinke has been for the last three days? What exactly was the previous administration's level of due diligence on site? According to MOnticello's manager who I know personally it was a 30 minute meeting via a teleconference I think he said. Zinke has met with numerous tribal groups and is actually touring the area via horseback and helicopter and sharing some awesome pics along the way. I am amazed at how scared some people are of due diligence and fact finding, what are you so afraid of? Someone making an educated decision? It is some pretty areas I can certainly see some merit in a designation of some of this area. Hopefully enlightenment may happen resulting in some well thought-out decisions considering all stakeholders. Heaven forbid we keep our minds open and see the whole forest rather than our own little left leaning tree.


So when Zinke does it it's due diligence and fact finding, but when Sally Jewell did it, it was a vacation?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4124090-155/after-packed-meeting-interior-secretary-jewell

This wasn't designated on a whim. I don't agree with the overuse of executive power, but that's not unique to the democrats. Both parties cheer it's use when it suits their respective agendas.

Legislative solutions were encouraged, and thanks to Utahs reps, only a non viable solution was brought forward.

Again, I don't like the mechanism used for designating the monument, but it's disingenuous to imply that there was no due diligence or consideration given by Jewell et al.

Also there are plenty of trees providing shelter that lean to the right....

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Yes, Jewel did come and tour the area. And I'm sure there are some on here that would say that when she toured the area with proponents of the monument, it was totally unbiased. Unlike Zinke, who is just totally biased in his tour of the monument, right? 

GO TEAM GO!


----------



## PBH

The Indians, they don't fully understand...
...just take my word for it.

ha ha! This is great!

Personally, I think this is all great exposure. Tourism should increase in those areas, Zinke will win over people on both sides, and the Utah delegation (Bishop, Hatch, Sherbert -- when will Noel show up?) continue to brush us all off with our questions by answering "just take our word for it".


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> Yes, Jewel did come and tour the area. And I'm sure there are some on here that would say that when she toured the area with proponents of the monument, it was totally unbiased. Unlike Zinke, who is just totally biased in his tour of the monument, right?
> 
> GO TEAM GO!


Not saying there wasn't bias. Hell, the Democrats aren't my team on any but a select few issues. Not sure I really have a team at all.

Huges implication seemed to be saying that because Zinke was here that he was somehow doing something that wasn't done previously. Different biases for sure, but implying there wasn't due diligence done before is disingenuous.

I favor protection largely because it decreases the likelihood the state will get their hands on the land, but I don't like the method of using the antiquities act to designate monuments. Nor do I appreciate the overuse of any executive order. But again, both sides of the aisle are complicit in these abuses. We only complain about it when it's done by the other team.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Not referring to you Kwalk3. I'm just fed up with each side crying foul on this when it is convenient for them.


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> Not referring to you Kwalk3. I'm just fed up with each side crying foul on this when it is convenient for them.


My Bad. Thought you were responding to my post. Sorry for the mini-rant.


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> The Indians, they don't fully understand...
> ...just take my word for it.
> 
> ha ha! This is great!
> 
> Personally, I think this is all great exposure. Tourism should increase in those areas, Zinke will win over people on both sides, and the Utah delegation (Bishop, Hatch, Sherbert -- when will Noel show up?) continue to brush us all off with our questions by answering "just take our word for it".


Oh man, that quote was classically bad. :roll:

No matter which way your tree leans, you have to agree that Hatch needs to Jazzy cycle off into the sunset.


----------



## Kwalk3

Inspecting the coal seam on GSENM. Any guesses who led the tour there?


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> Inspecting the coal seam on GSENM. Any guesses who led the tour there?


Seems like he saw lots and met with many from divergent interests.

Kudo's to the man for conducting true due diligence.


----------



## Kwalk3

Not sure how divergent the interests have been. Though I wouldn't argue that Jewell's visit was any less biased on the pre designation side. Still doesn't instill confidence in the process for me.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> Not sure how divergent the interests have been. Though I wouldn't argue that Jewell's visit was any less biased on the pre designation side. Still doesn't instill confidence in the process for me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Yeah coming from REI (Super Dooper Do Gooders) she wasn't biased.

Your lack of confidence may be liberal delusional paranoia. Libs don't like open process.

Can you offer citation where the 100,000 native american sites comes from? All I can trace is the Intertribal Council tossed a number out and the libs took it as gospel. I think it's a fake number the indians made up. Care to prove me wrong?


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> Yeah coming from REI (Super Dooper Do Gooders) she wasn't biased.
> 
> Your lack of confidence may be liberal delusional paranoia. Libs don't like open process.
> 
> Can you offer citation where the 100,000 native american sites comes from? All I can trace is the Intertribal Council tossed a number out and the libs took it as gospel. I think it's a fake number the indians made up. Care to prove me wrong?


Or maybe not everyone who disagrees with you and expresses concern over a person and/or process is inherently a liberal or even *gasp* wrong.

I disagree vehemently with different aspects on the left and right, but as this is an outdoor forum, the things that deal with public land get my attention here.

Zinke posting selfies on Twitter with Rob Bishop in jorts doesn't mean that the process is open, at least not in the way you think.

The motives appear clear, and this most-likely stems from requests from our state delegation to review the designations. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Bishop, Herbert, Chaffetz, and Hatch have our best interest at heart regarding public land policy and access.

You have clearly not taken the time to read the posts on this thread and even attempt to understand the nuance involved in my opinion or the issue as a whole, outside of the partisan rhetoric.

I've never brought up the native American sites or their number. I have concerns about the size of the monument and the way it was designated. But hey, if you'd been following along and contributing more than what I assume you think are "zinger" one-liners you might realize that.

And sheesh, for someone that called Democrats the party of labels I'm this very thread, you sure do love the dismissive labeling of others that may disagree with you.

Lastly, before you demand evidence of claims I never made, maybe bring some substance and evidence to the conversation and tell us your viewpoint in a constructive way. I'm willing to listen, and even evolve my opinion when it's clear I've been looking at something incorrectly. Until then.....

Signed,

A Do Gooder

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

I've been a member of REI since 1974, so about 43 years. Had a pretty low number, but lost my card and got a higher one when they reissued it. Do Gooder, too, and a Democrat. Take only pictures, leave only footprints. Proud to lean more toward conservation and preservation than exploitation and destruction.


----------



## Huge29

paddler said:


> Are you kidding? Your post is incredible, and by that I mean absolutely untrue and so beyond credulity. Did you miss Sally Jewell's visit when she was Interior Secretary? I believe she spent several days here before Obama acted because Congress couldn't get their act together. It was in all the papers. Oh, here's an article on it:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/home/5216776-155/jewell-defends-bears-ears-monument-process
> 
> Due diligence was undertaken, and the monument was appropriately designated. I don't care who you know personally, the facts speak for themselves.


I could type more slowly for you if it helps. The city manager had a 30 minute meeting with her, I clarified with him, it was in person not a teleconference. She spent no other time with local officials.

Was it Kwalk who stated he supported how it was designated? Im not sure how you can speak out the same mouth and now criticize the exact same process to undo it. Can we have some intellectual honesty to at least a small extent on this point? I dont think any single person should be able to unilaterally make this designations for or against.
While being honest, can anyone defend the use of the Antiquities act to do so? Certainly on a small scale this is exactly what the intent of the act was meant to do, however 1,351,849 acres is clearly a major overreach by anyone's standards. This is nearly 1/3rd of San Juan County, being the second largest county in the state or 2,112 square miles. Just got me thinking, lets compare to our national parks in square miles:
Bears Ears 2,112 sq mi
Grand Staircase 2,975
Zions NP 229
Bryce 57
Capitol Reef 378
Arches 120
Canyonlands 527

So, the 5 national parks combined are 1,311 square miles or just over half of Bear Ears. I know that those who are the partisan hacks cant see the forest for the trees and logic plays no role in their decisions, for the rest of us this seems like a major overreach based on these simple figures.


----------



## Kwalk3

Huge29 said:


> I could type more slowly for you if it helps. The city manager had a 30 minute meeting with her, I clarified with him, it was in person not a teleconference. She spent no other time with local officials.
> 
> Was it Kwalk who stated he supported how it was designated? Im not sure how you can speak out the same mouth and now criticize the exact same process to undo it. Can we have some intellectual honesty to at least a small extent on this point? I dont think any single person should be able to unilaterally make this designations for or against.
> While being honest, can anyone defend the use of the Antiquities act to do so? Certainly on a small scale this is exactly what the intent of the act was meant to do, however 1,351,849 acres is clearly a major overreach by anyone's standards. This is nearly 1/3rd of San Juan County, being the second largest county in the state or 2,112 square miles. Just got me thinking, lets compare to our national parks in square miles:
> Bears Ears 2,112 sq mi
> Grand Staircase 2,975
> Zions NP 229
> Bryce 57
> Capitol Reef 378
> Arches 120
> Canyonlands 527
> 
> So, the 5 national parks combined are 1,311 square miles or just over half of Bear Ears. I know that those who are the partisan hacks cant see the forest for the trees and logic plays no role in their decisions, for the rest of us this seems like a major overreach based on these simple figures.


I don't like how it was designated. I do like that it has another layer of protection from transfer to the state. For now. Not a fan of executive legislation as a general political tool.

Sally Jewell probably should have met with more opponents of the monument. Honest question, how much face time with Jewell would have satisfied the due diligence requirement?

Zinke probably should be meeting with more proponents. I'm not sure this is anything different than Jewell, but with a different bias and agenda.

More than anything, our state delegation should have done something about further protecting the place.

Either way, unless the state gets its hands on some of the land, things are unlikely to change as far as hunting and fishing access are concerned, whether the designation remains our not.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Huge29 said:


> I could type more slowly for you if it helps. The city manager had a 30 minute meeting with her, I clarified with him, it was in person not a teleconference.  She spent no other time with local officials.
> 
> Was it Kwalk who stated he supported how it was designated? Im not sure how you can speak out the same mouth and now criticize the exact same process to undo it. Can we have some intellectual honesty to at least a small extent on this point? I dont think any single person should be able to unilaterally make this designations for or against.
> While being honest, can anyone defend the use of the Antiquities act to do so? Certainly on a small scale this is exactly what the intent of the act was meant to do, however 1,351,849 acres is clearly a major overreach by anyone's standards. This is nearly 1/3rd of San Juan County, being the second largest county in the state or 2,112 square miles. Just got me thinking, lets compare to our national parks in square miles:
> Bears Ears 2,112 sq mi
> Grand Staircase 2,975
> Zions NP 229
> Bryce 57
> Capitol Reef 378
> Arches 120
> Canyonlands 527
> 
> So, the 5 national parks combined are 1,311 square miles or just over half of Bear Ears. I know that those who are the partisan hacks cant see the forest for the trees and logic plays no role in their decisions, for the rest of us this seems like a major overreach based on these simple figures.


I have no problem with the way it was designated, as the process was long and involved all shareholders. You originally stated that Jewell had a 30 minute meeting via teleconference, then corrected yourself. Doesn't matter, she obviously allotted him time as a courtesy. It's not clear to me that the manager of a town of 2000 people should have any input in the designation of a national monument. You seem to think he should, care to explain yourself? Remember that this is federal land, belonging to all 321,000,000 current Americans (as of 2015), plus all future Americans, not to mention that visitors from around the world will visit and enjoy it.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was originally enacted to prevent looting of artifacts in the American Southwest, and empowers the president acting alone to so designate any area he deems worthy of protection. Therefore, your opinion is in conflict with establish law and so irrelevant. The question of whether a president has legal authority to reduce or rescind any monument has not yet been tested in court, but I'm sure that any attempt by Trump to do so will face lengthy legal challenges. It seems he has bigger fish to fry at the moment.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huge29 said:


> So, the 5 national parks combined are 1,311 square miles or just over half of Bear Ears. I know that those who are the partisan hacks cant see the forest for the trees and logic plays no role in their decisions, for the rest of us this seems like a major overreach based on these simple figures.


Ok...I sorta see your point, but Bishop's own PLI was willing to set aside much more land than the 5 national parks combined 1,311 square miles as a NRCA. So, how is that much different?


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> The Antiquities Act of 1906 was originally enacted to prevent looting of artifacts in the American Southwest, and empowers the president acting alone to so designate any area he deems worthy of protection. Therefore, your opinion is in conflict with establish law and so irrelevant.


If that was an accurate statement of the law, we could discuss it. But since you clearly don't even understand what the law says and does, it will just be a waste of time anyway. Come back with an accurate, and complete statement of the law, and we'll talk.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> If that was an accurate statement of the law, we could discuss it. But since you clearly don't even understand what the law says and does, it will just be a waste of time anyway. Come back with an accurate, and complete statement of the law, and we'll talk.


Feel free to enlighten us, V.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Feel free to enlighten us, V.


I'm not going to do the work for you, doc. You're a smart guy. Put on your big boy pants and read something other than liberal commentary.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I'm not going to do the work for you, doc. You're a smart guy. Put on your big boy pants and read something other than liberal commentary.


If you disagree with my post, explain why. Otherwise it stands as written. Show us how smart you are. I'm yawning...


----------



## middlefork

American Antiquities Act of 1906

16 USC 431-433
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

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.

Sec. 3. That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War to institutions which the may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulation as they may prescribe: Provided, That the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gatherings shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums.

Sec. 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

Approved, June 8, 1906

Please enlighten us.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> American Antiquities Act of 1906
> 
> 16 USC 431-433
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Sec. 3. That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under their respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War to institutions which the may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering, subject to such rules and regulation as they may prescribe: Provided, That the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gatherings shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums.
> 
> Sec. 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
> 
> Approved, June 8, 1906
> 
> Please enlighten us.


Here I was hoping V would illuminate this subject for us. It sure sounded like he had something to say, being an attorney and all. But as always, he leaves us disappointed.


----------



## middlefork

I am honestly asking for clarification. I realize that legal eagles have their opinions. That's why they make the big bucks.
Me I'm high school graduate with an advanced degree in life with hard knocks.
Trouble is my BS meter is on high alert


----------



## .45

paddler said:


> Here I was hoping V would illuminate this subject for us. It sure sounded like he had something to say, being an attorney and all. But as always, he leaves us disappointed.


'Us' paddler? Really?


----------



## paddler

.45 said:


> 'Us' paddler? Really?


Sure, "Us". Well, maybe not you. Apparently. I stated my understanding of the Antiquities Act, that the president has broad powers to act alone to designate national monuments. V objected, but as of yet has not explained why. I think many, like middlefork, would appreciate hearing his thoughts. He has introduced some confusion into the discussion, the polite remedy would be to explain what precisely he objected to in my post. Simple enough, especially since he's a lawyer. Child's play, really, for our resident legal scholar.

My impression is that Grand Staircase was lawfully designated by Clinton and that Bears Ears was also lawfully designated by Obama. Huge thinks that the president should not have that power, I merely stated that his opinion conflicts with a law established 111 years ago. Further, there doesn't appear to be statutory authority for a president to reduce or rescind monuments. True, some monuments have undergone status changes such as being made National Parks, some have been reduced for a variety of reasons. But the power to do so by a president has never been tested in court. Perhaps I'm confused about the above, in which case I would stand corrected.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> The Antiquities Act of 1906 was originally enacted to prevent looting of artifacts in the American Southwest,* and empowers the president acting alone to so designate any area he deems worthy of protection.*


Then there was this:



paddler said:


> I stated my understanding of the Antiquities Act, that the president has broad powers to act alone to designate national monuments...


These are your quotes, and they are not saying the same thing. Quite different, actually. Broad powers are not the same as do anything you want. Not even in coo coo-ville. If you're going to try and give out back-handed insults, at least be honest in what you've said along the way while you're doing it. Never been your strong suit, that honesty stuff, I know. But again, put on those big boy pants, you'll be just fine.

Your second statement is pretty accurate. Your first statement isn't even in the same zip code as the facts. But again...I've been doing this dance with you for years, so not exactly surprising.

To be clear, I'll even type is slowly, the Antiquities Act does not empower a president to designate ANY area he (or she, since I don't hate women) deems worthy of protection. There are limits right in the law itself. Like I said, put on your big boy pants and read it.


----------



## Bax*

Please keep the conversation civil.

I know this is a very polarized topic, but please keep a civil atmosphere.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Then there was this:
> 
> These are your quotes, and they are not saying the same thing. Quite different, actually. Broad powers are not the same as do anything you want. Not even in coo coo-ville. If you're going to try and give out back-handed insults, at least be honest in what you've said along the way while you're doing it. Never been your strong suit, that honesty stuff, I know. But again, put on those big boy pants, you'll be just fine.
> 
> Your second statement is pretty accurate. Your first statement isn't even in the same zip code as the facts. But again...I've been doing this dance with you for years, so not exactly surprising.
> 
> To be clear, I'll even type is slowly, the Antiquity Act does not empower a president to designate ANY area he (or she, since I don't hate women) seems worthy of protection. There are limits right in the law itself. Like I said, put on your big boy pants and read it.


Thanks, V. It appears your objection was purely argumentative and not meant to further the discussion. Presidents have, of course, always used judgement in the designation of national monuments. After all, the Act was initially provoked by and intended to stop the looting of American Indian artifacts in the Southwest. Chaco Canyon had suffered decades of looting and destruction before it was passed. Hence the name. As written it focused on antiquities, but it has since become an important conservation tool. It has been used to protect not only ancient ruins, but also historical sites and wild lands. From the Wiki, "The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act, ruling each time that the Act gives the president nearly-unfettered discretion as to the nature of the object to be protected and the size of the area reserved." It also appears that ARPA of 1979 strengthened enforcement of the Act.

Sixteen presidents have used the Antiquities Act, all but Nixon, Reagan and Poppy Bush. To my knowledge, no president before Trump has attempted to reduce or rescind monuments just to please extractors, polluters and profiteers, or out of spite for the legacies of his predecessors. But, we've never had a president like Trump before, a pathologically lying narcissist with no respect for the rule of law. He appears to be in deep trouble now on multiple fronts, hopefully any proposed action on our monuments will be back-burnered.

Creating straw man arguments in order to cloud the discussion is counterproductive. They are easy to spot and counter, the net result is undermining one's credibility. In this case, you chose to exaggerate the differences in my posts merely so you could criticize. Above, you asked if rescinding Bears Ears would result in the immediate sale of lands or oil rigs on every ridge. Same straw man, and completely beside the point. The question is whether to protect and preserve lands in perpetuity or leave them open for future development. So, you just come off as disingenuous, even silly. I'd prefer you to be more thoughtful and constructive.


----------



## Bax*

I find this quote from the Supreme Court concerning the Antiquities Act a little disconcerting:

[the President has] "nearly-unfettered discretion as to the nature of the object to be protected and the size of the area reserved".

First off, let me be clear that no one argues that America has certain resources that are deserving of protection. But having limitless bounds with out others' input doesn't bode well with me.

I believe the Antiquities Act was designed with the purest of intentions that have been muddled by time and people's desires to make monuments unto themselves rather than for the people.

This is the over reach of power that I feel is inappropriate. Not in the sense that a President is sinister in their intent, but in the sense that the Act leaves unequivocal discretion to the President to do whatever they feel fit. It inadvertently circumvented checks and balances.

What I do believe would be appropriate would be an amendment that allows the President to designate a monument predicated upon input from vested parties and leadership to allow for amicable resolutions on monument size. If no unanimous decision is reached, then the President may still designate a monument on a limited scale with a maximum acreage of X number with no ability to create a neighboring monument whose borders are shared.

Additionally, I believe that it would be appropriate to require the designee to visit their proposed monument and meet with local leaders before the monument can be officially designated.

I gotta get back to work....


----------



## paddler

Bax, can you site an example of overreach in a monument designation? I ask because there will always be disagreements because people will always have disparate interests. Reaching amicable resolutions will not be the rule, but the exception. Even the Grand Canyon designation was controversial. In retrospect, it is amazing that anyone could object to preserving such an incredible landscape.


----------



## Bax*

That's the problem Paddler. Overreach is a subjective word. What it means to me, may be acceptable to another, and yet another may say that overreach is an understatement. 

I do however personally feel that GSNEM was an overreach. My definition of overreach in that situation was that the bounds of the monument were too large. I agree certain areas should be protected while others were irrelevant to the designation. 

PBH and I are at odds on that topic but we both agree that we love the area and want what is best for the land, we just differ on what should be included.


----------



## Bax*

I will say that my opinions on the designation have changed over the years and have softened but I still think that it was handled wrong.


----------



## paddler

Bax* said:


> I will say that my opinions on the designation have changed over the years and have softened but I still think that it was handled wrong.


I think many felt it was overreach, partly because the announcement was made in Arizona. I don't have a problem with it, being a Do Gooder and all. The designation had very little actual impact on how the area is used except for stopping a coal mine. As coal appears to be dying, that hasn't turned out to be a big deal. Of course, it also increases protections for artifacts, fossils, etc. If you believe the folks in Escalante, it has been a great stimulus for the local economies. Often these things look very different after a few years.


----------



## .45

paddler said:


> I've been a member of REI since 1974, so about 43 years. Had a pretty low number, but lost my card and got a higher one when they reissued it. Do Gooder, too, and a Democrat. Take only pictures, leave only footprints. Proud to lean more toward conservation and preservation than exploitation and destruction.


Karl?


----------

