# Biden and Bears Ears



## paddler

President-elect Biden has indicated he will rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear deal, support NATO and our allies, not suck up to our adversaires, support the WHO, etc. In short, he'll be focusing on undoing the damage done by the Dumpster. Think he'll get around to restoring Bears Ears to its original boundaries? Sure hope so, though he has a lot on his plate.


----------



## middlefork

I was wondering how long it would take for something like this to come up. Apparently not long! Maybe he should just do away with the designation entirely and save some more tax money.


----------



## DallanC

The law on creating national monuments is clear, it states it must be:

_*"the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."

*_Obama over reached, what he allocated was too big. There were over 100,000 acres of private lands within the boundry he created. Trump was right to reduce the overall size.

There is no legal basis for Biden to increase the current boundary.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> The law on creating national monuments is clear, it states it must be:
> 
> _*"the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
> 
> *_Obama over reached, what he allocated was too big. There were over 100,000 acres of private lands within the boundry he created. Trump was right to reduce the overall size.
> 
> There is no legal basis for Biden to increase the current boundary.
> 
> -DallanC


Except the Antiquities Act, of course. It has been challenged many times in court and upheld every time. There was no legal basis, either in the language of the Act or in case law, for reducing the boundary.


----------



## Critter

The problem with the Antiquities Act is that those who are going to take the artifacts are going to take them even if it is a National Park. 

It's like saying that a bank robber can not rob a bank because there is a law against it.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> The problem with the Antiquities Act is that those who are going to take the artifacts are going to take them even if it is a National Park.
> 
> It's like saying that a bank robber can not rob a bank because there is a law against it.


That's a repetition of the tired old argument, as in, people often exceed speed limits, does that mean we shouldn't have them?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> That's a repetition of the tired old argument, as in, people often exceed speed limits, does that mean we shouldn't have them?


A speeding ticket isn't worth thousands of dollars on the black market.

Morning sunshine!


----------



## 2full

Biden will be too busy switching us over to Socialism for a while. 
Then he will take care of things like Bears Ears.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> A speeding ticket isn't worth thousands of dollars on the black market.
> 
> Morning sunshine!


So, is it your position that removing the protections of public lands afforded by the Antiquities Act would be a good thing? There are laws against looting artifacts already, the Act doesn't attempt to address that issue. People have been prosecuted and penalized, but there will always be those who will violate laws for thirty pieces of silver.


----------



## backcountry

We move from one wedge issue to the next with such rapidity. 

It is interesting seeing a thread in which you ignore/block the OP. It's like reading a book with missing chapters but the plot is unaffected and still predictable.


----------



## wyogoob

When I was a younger man Mrs Goob and I hiked down there........uh....actually I just wanted to jump in before the thread gets locked....


top of da page


----------



## Packout

Biden won't have the chance to do all that stuff. He will be out within 6 months and Harris will be the President. 

Actually, I'm just following Goob's lead to get in before Huge locks it.


----------



## 2full

Harris will get us switched over even faster.


----------



## Jedidiah

Wait, I thought we wanted him to give free education to transvestites and black people first.


----------



## 2full

They will give everyone, everything for free !!!
Those of us that worked our butts off our whole lives, payed our dues, and contributed to society will have to pay for it. 
Why work ??


----------



## CPAjeff

I'm reminded of a line from _Gladiator_ ... "he'll bring them death, and they'll love him for it."

In before the lock!


----------



## backcountry

wyogoob said:


> When I was a younger man Mrs Goob and I hiked down there........uh....actually I just wanted to jump in before the thread gets locked....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> top of da page


I'm not sure I believe you were ever young. You seem like one of those ageless time travelers in a sci-fi show/movie made in a nordic country (15 months of darkness does wonders for creativity). I'm an old man at heart so I get it. I just get the sense you've been a vagabond wandering the Uinta mountains since the 19th century and we will likely find photos of trappers from that era that look just like you. My best evidence: the recipes.


----------



## Jedidiah

2full said:


> Why work ??


C'mon man! We have to work on unity, we're going to need it. We elected a guy who can't remember what state he's in, dropped out of school due to plagiarism, has a son with verified videos of him with meth, cocaine and professional women he's doing it with. His VP giggles when she's asked serious questions and runs rallies while drunk. This is going to be rough, we need to get behind these people and help them or we're literally going to burn. Unity!


----------



## Dunkem

> I think we are all very concerned about the politics of America right now. And I'm sure we all have input on the matter, but we appreciate the responsible and respectful attitudes of our members who have abstained from posting about political topics that are outside the scope of this forum.
> 
> If you would like to comment on politics, feel free to join any of the many political forums available. But please continue to avoid this here.
> 
> Regarding censorship: this is indeed a private forum as was mentioned. If you dont like the rules, feel free to write forum ownership. There is a reason this forum is so successful, and that is the consistent respect our members show each other and when that respect is revoked by violating forum rules that others strive to honor, then it is time to move on.
> 
> Although we have our differences of opinion on varying outdoor topics, you've done a great job of keeping respectful tones. Please continue to make UWN a place worth visiting.


This is a quote from Bax on another post, respect it--


----------



## paddler

So, what do you all think about Bears Ears? Now that it's possible to restore the original boundaries as set forth by Obama, do you think it would be a good idea to do so? 

I think I remember a post about Stewart's proposal to create a smaller National Park in the area, but the poster, IIRC, said it was a wolf in sheep's clothing. I'm not familiar with the details, but would prefer the restoration of the original NM boundaries instead of a smaller National Park. Thoughts?

PS. I won't be the reason this thread gets locked if that comes to pass. Politics very much impacts our ability to enjoy our outdoor pursuits, I'll continue to focus on those impacts.


----------



## 2full

Okay.... Smaller park.


----------



## paddler

2full said:


> Okay.... Smaller park.


Which means less area protected from development and no hunting in the NP. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.


----------



## 2full

You asked my opinion.


----------



## taxidermist

I'd be worrying about how this Country will be going to He!! in handbasket!! Not a chunk of land in southern Utah.


----------



## BPturkeys

Trouble is nobody likes or wants a NP or a NM...but with our current laws there is no other way to keep the despoilers, the wolves of ruin, the "drill baby drillers", the profit first corps, developers, miners, wild ATV'ers, "us local yokels need to make all the decision cause we live near by" nut jobs, from destroying the whole thing!

Trouble is, this land belongs to all Americans. Americans with different wants and likes. People that live in California, Florida, kanas and Idaho. People that only want to look, and others that only want to know it's there. It belongs to the us people, it belongs to our grand children and their grand children...
Trouble is, the Rump and his team took 8 weeks of riding around with a bunch of one sided locals and they made a decision that would not preserve or defend the land for a while longer, but opened the door to it's destruction. A decision that would change this place forever.
OK, in before the lock.


----------



## Critter

And the D's took a pen and drew a big circle and proclaimed it off limits without ever actually knowing anything about it or what the people who live, or work in it wanted

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## 2full

Making it ALL National Park, or Monument makes it inaccessible to 99 percent of the American public that can't physically go and explore it on foot, or even visit it. 
Even the hunters couldn't use it. What good is that to pretty much everyone ?
Definitely set aside some. But not the whole thing. 

Okay "in before the lock" again. 
Didn't think it would go this long. I don't usually get political.......so I'm out.


----------



## paddler

2full said:


> You asked my opinion.


Yes, I did. And you are certainly entitled to it. I was merely pointing out the impact if your recommendation took effect.


----------



## paddler

2full said:


> Making it ALL National Park, or Monument makes it inaccessible to 99 percent of the American public that can't physically go and explore it on foot, or even visit it.
> Even the hunters couldn't use it. What good is that to pretty much everyone ?
> Definitely set aside some. But not the whole thing.
> 
> Okay "in before the lock" again.
> Didn't think it would go this long. I don't usually get political.......so I'm out.


Making it a National Monument would not impact hunting or fishing. Those activities would remain under the auspices of our DWR. So no, it would not be inaccessible to anybody who can visit it today. The NM designation would preserve it in perpetuity and prohibit development. That's good for hunters, fishermen and everybody else.


----------



## Critter

Seams like all this was hashed out a number of years ago with the same arguements.

I don't see any need to do it over

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bax*

This my favorite thread


----------



## Catherder

Bax* said:


> This my favorite thread


You mean you aren't going to lock it yet? :lock1:

Welp, IBTL then.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> You mean you aren't going to lock it yet? :lock1:
> 
> Welp, IBTL then.


I don't get all this talk about locking this thread. This is clearly a discussion worth having here as it impacts sportsmen. A Democratic President dedicated a NM in southern Utah in order to protect the antiquities there. A subsequent Republican President issued an executive order rescinding that designation, despite there being no legal basis for doing so. As far as I know, multiple lawsuits are still pending challenging the reduction. We now have a new, Democratic President-elect who has stated that he will reverse many of the executive orders of the current administration. So, it's reasonable to ask the question of whether or not Bears Ears will be restored. Personally, I think it should be done. The pending lawsuits will become moot, so the question of whether or not a president can unilaterally reduce a NM will remain unanswered. I simply asked how members here feel about the issue.


----------



## goosefreak

Get ready for gas prices to double, health insurance premiums to go up, along with state taxes from importing goods etc.. it’s the Democratic way! Force you into poverty so the D-rats can jump in to save the day. 

In before the lock!!


----------



## Critter

Here is plenty of reading on the same subject:

https://utahwildlife.net/forum/21-great-outdoors/166946-bears-ears-monument-likely.html

https://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/168010-bears-ears.html


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> I don't get all this talk about locking this thread.


Because a discussion of this nature during a time when a great many folks have white hot partisan emotions has a predictable result. I usually like the "near" political discussions on here about pertinent topics but right now I don't feel like getting into "it".

However, I will favor 2 thoughts on the subject before stepping away.

1. The Biden administration will have 10,001 issues and crises upon taking office higher in priority than BENM. I wouldn't expect any action on the matter for some time into his term.

2. Since there are already lawsuits filed on the Trump administrations actions, Bidens people will likely wait for those to be adjudicated. The judgements rendered will likely define what would be the best course of action to take if he were inclined to act on BENM and/or GSENM.


----------



## DallanC

LOL @ the "First Term" references. Two words: "President Harris".


No way Biden will serve a full term.


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Because a discussion of this nature during a time when a great many folks have white hot partisan emotions has a predictable result. I usually like the "near" political discussions on here about pertinent topics but right now I don't feel like getting into "it".
> 
> However, I will favor 2 thoughts on the subject before stepping away.
> 
> 1. The Biden administration will have 10,001 issues and crises upon taking office higher in priority than BENM. I wouldn't expect any action on the matter for some time into his term.
> 
> 2. Since there are already lawsuits filed on the Trump administrations actions, Bidens people will likely wait for those to be adjudicated. The judgements rendered will likely define what would be the best course of action to take if he were inclined to act on BENM and/or GSENM.


Not sure I agree on your second thought. If Biden restores the monuments, it would seem all the litigation over Trump's actions would be moot, ie, go away. The Antiquities Act allows Presidents to designate NMs, it's not clear to me that restoring BE wouldn't be permitted by it.

I certainly agree that Biden has lots of bigger fish to fry before getting around to BE.


----------



## Vanilla

I’d like to know which specific antiquities are left unprotected under the current BENM designation that need to be expanded. If someone believes there are specific antiquities that were left out of President Trump’s order that need protecting under the powers of the Antiquities Act, what are they? 

I’m completely uninterested in philosophical debates on the antiquities act or whose actions were lawful or not. Unfortunately we likely won’t get those unanswered questions answered. It would have been nice to resolve the hypotheticals, but it’s doubtful the next administration will litigate those. So it’s a waste of time to debate it. I simply want to know what specific antiquities are being left unprotected at the moment that would justify expanding the national monument.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

CPAjeff said:


> I'm reminded of a line from _Gladiator_ ... "he'll bring them death, and they'll love him for it."
> 
> In before the lock!





taxidermist said:


> I'd be worrying about how this Country will be going to He!! in handbasket!! Not a chunk of land in southern Utah.


QFE.


----------



## PBH

Careful what you ask for!!

A "smaller national park" might sound better than the current Bear's Ears. But you wouldn't end up with less -- you'd simply end up with the Escalante Canyons National Park + the remaining still protected as National Monument.

I'd prefer to have it all a National Monument, and managed as multiple use - which is exactly what we currently and previously had. ATV access? Check. Hunting opportunities with wildlife managed by the State of Utah? check.

If we end up with the Escalante Canyons National Park, we'll lose hunting access, fishing access, and ATV access. That's a bad thing. We do not want a Park. We want it protected as a Monument with multiple use.


----------



## Packout

Vanilla said:


> I'd like to know which specific antiquities are left unprotected under the current BENM designation that need to be expanded. If someone believes there are specific antiquities that were left out of President Trump's order that need protecting under the powers of the Antiquities Act, what are they?
> 
> I'm completely uninterested in philosophical debates on the antiquities act or whose actions were lawful or not. Unfortunately we likely won't get those unanswered questions answered. It would have been nice to resolve the hypotheticals, but it's doubtful the next administration will litigate those. So it's a waste of time to debate it. I simply want to know what specific antiquities are being left unprotected at the moment that would justify expanding the national monument.


Stop trying to ruin a most excellent opinion-based debate with facts. Sheesh.



paddler said:


> A subsequent Republican President issued an executive order rescinding that designation, despite there being no legal basis for doing so.


Trump did not rescind the NM- he changed the boundaries- based on local and expert input. There is still a rather large monument called Bears Ears. That is the problem with these "Tribe" discussions- people take everything too far. So when the new Administration rescinds many of Trump's actions I doubt the new Administration's supporters will not be here saying they shouldn't. 
.


----------



## Vanilla

Packout said:


> So when the new Administration rescinds many of Trump's actions I doubt the new Administration's supporters will not be here saying they shouldn't.
> .


It is virtually guaranteed that any time a president exercises executive action that approximately 45% of the country will hate it and think it was wrong and 45% of the country will think it was the greatest thing ever. Then there will be 10% of us wondering why everyone else is acting silly.


----------



## paddler

Packout said:


> Stop trying to ruin a most excellent opinion-based debate with facts. Sheesh.
> 
> Trump did not rescind the NM- he changed the boundaries- based on local and expert input. There is still a rather large monument called Bears Ears. That is the problem with these "Tribe" discussions- people take everything too far. So when the new Administration rescinds many of Trump's actions I doubt the new Administration's supporters will not be here saying they shouldn't.
> .


My understanding is that there are antiquities all over the area in varying concentrations. I think V should do some research, maybe get hold of some maps logging artifacts, and report back, since he brought it up.

You're correct, I misspoke, Trump didn't rescind BE. He only reduced it by 85% due to local input. He reduced GS by 50%, although court cases are still pending. Locals always oppose designations, even the Grand Canyon was resisted, but it has worked out well. Grand Staircase, same. Not sure about the status of litigation over the monuments as of this date.


----------



## Bax*

We have received some reports on various posts on this thread and reading through the comments, some are outside the scope of permissible (and agreed upon terms when you joined the forum) political topics.

At this time, I dont feel like it is appropriate to lock the thread down BUT that doesnt mean it wont happen if members cant check their non-outdoor political posts at the door.

I will say that I was quite anti-monument due to familial relations in GSNEM and for many many years promoted revoking the designation. But during this time, PBH warned me that it was a dangerous slope, and guess what? He was right, now we have Chris Stewart advocating for a National Park.

A neighbor of mine worked for the BLM until recently (now with the Forest Service) and was actually in charge of BE and GSNEM areas and he told me that the #1 reason people visit these areas (based off many people surveyed) is *solitude*. They want to get away from the insanity of life and enjoy the peace of being alone. But the second the land becomes a national park, you will find buses of tourists, loss of sportsmen access, litter, and the loss of solitude that so many are seeking.

My point being (and I cant believe I am saying this), maybe the monuments arent as bad as I once thought? Either way, traffic has increased exponentially in these areas. There was a time you couldnt reach certain areas without a high clearance 4WD vehicle, and now the roads are graded and I see cars at trailheads that were once inaccessible to those kinds of vehicles. The word is out, people now know about these once obscure places and traffic is way up from what it once was. But that doesnt mean we need to make it worse by paving roads and eliminating the magic of a wild area where we can hunt, camp, hike, and more.


----------



## Critter

My biggest problem is that once areas become monuments they are just a very short step away from becoming a National Park

There are other ways to keep development out. But as things stand now it is just a signature on a piece of paper that either denies it or advocates for it, and that right there will push the area into talks for a National Park.

Here in Colorado it was just a signature that created "Wilderness Study Areas" roads were cut off, and visitation is highly restricted to those who can afford the time and expense such as horses to go into them.


----------



## paddler

Bax* said:


> We have received some reports on various posts on this thread and reading through the comments, some are outside the scope of permissible (and agreed upon terms when you joined the forum) political topics.
> 
> At this time, I dont feel like it is appropriate to lock the thread down BUT that doesnt mean it wont happen if members cant check their non-outdoor political posts at the door.
> 
> I will say that I was quite anti-monument due to familial relations in GSNEM and for many many years promoted revoking the designation. But during this time, PBH warned me that it was a dangerous slope, and guess what? He was right, now we have Chris Stewart advocating for a National Park.
> 
> A neighbor of mine worked for the BLM until recently (now with the Forest Service) and was actually in charge of BE and GSNEM areas and he told me that the #1 reason people visit these areas (based off many people surveyed) is *solitude*. They want to get away from the insanity of life and enjoy the peace of being alone. But the second the land becomes a national park, you will find buses of tourists, loss of sportsmen access, litter, and the loss of solitude that so many are seeking.
> 
> My point being (and I cant believe I am saying this), maybe the monuments arent as bad as I once thought? Either way, traffic has increased exponentially in these areas. There was a time you couldnt reach certain areas without a high clearance 4WD vehicle, and now the roads are graded and I see cars at trailheads that were once inaccessible to those kinds of vehicles. The word is out, people now know about these once obscure places and traffic is way up from what it once was. But that doesnt mean we need to make it worse by paving roads and eliminating the magic of a wild area where we can hunt, camp, hike, and more.


It sounds like your views have evolved. That's actually quite common. Locals and profiteers resist protecting federal lands, the profiteers for obvious reasons, the locals because they incorrectly believe that living in proximity to those areas entitles them more say in how they are managed than any other American citizen. In the fullness of time, designations are generally seen as a very good thing. Short-sighted local politicos and profiteers lose, the citizenry as a whole wins. "In wildness is the preservation of the world." Thoreau.

NM designation invariably results in more interest and visitation, but that's the price of protecting those lands from development and exploitation. The lesser of two evils, depending on ones point of view.


----------



## PBH

Bax* said:


> ...But that doesnt mean we need to make it worse by *paving roads* and eliminating the magic of a wild area where we can hunt, camp, hike, and more.


I don't believe that more paved roads are a concern. I think just the opposite. We'd see existing roads / ATV trails closed, and areas where we currently hunt, camp, hike, and more closed off for good.

You are correct: the word is out. The instagrams and twitters and facebooks have done a number to promote and attract people to these obscure places that offer solitude.

Critter -- you are exactly right -- a NM is just one step away from a NP. That's exactly why I'm saying: be careful what you ask for!

For year's, the "traditional" locals to that area have asked to get rid of, or change, the NM. Change isn't always what we want -- sometimes that change comes in a different form than what was asked for...

What we have right now, and prior to to the boundary changes, isn't too bad. I kind of like it. The local communities, those who fight it the most, kind of like it too. As much as they complain about the increase in people, they sure aren't shy about collecting the money that comes with the tourists!


----------



## backcountry

Thanks for such a thoughtful post, Bax. It's not easy being vulnerable about our views changing in a culture that increasingly values steadfastness and tribalism.

My views on monuments have and will continue to change. I sincerely lack the wisdom and foresight to know what is "best" on these issues. I discovered the S. Utah landscape because a friend invited me to do a Thanksgiving backpacking trip in GSENM so many decades ago. It set off a passion that has defined my life since then. My views have played the entire field since then but increasingly I can say I don't have a political home on how best to conserve the area and deal with tourist pressures. And each administration adds a new layer that makes it more complex.

I don't want to see a park in GSENM but Bear's Ears is a political mess. Unlike most of my friends, once I looked at the changes to GSENM on maps a few years back (it feels like a decade if I'm honest) my blood pressure dropped and I truly didn't care beyond curiosity on how it would impact the Antiquities Act in years to come. I'm not against extraction in parts of that land and just want sound policy and protections against degradation if it happens.

I love that area. It's in my soul. But I don't have the energy to fight every new political battle our tribes want nor do I remotely know how to proceed. If we can find a path forward that seems to reach a thoughtful compromise between local desires and conservation, I'll probably support it. But given the state of our rhetoric and domestic cold war, I'm not holding my breath.

But in a few weeks I'll finally be out there backpacking or camping (**** central apnea makes backpacking hard now) alone freezing my nuts off in one of the few odd ways I recharge and heal. I'll keep finding that no matter which way this convo goes. Then I'll transition to day trips on the hard deck to balance my life with the weirdness the world is in. And then I'll have a daughter in the spring who I'll eventually teach to hunt and fish on these very lands. So it goes.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> My understanding is that there are antiquities all over the area in varying concentrations. I think V should do some research, maybe get hold of some maps logging artifacts, and report back, since he brought it up.


I'm not the one making the assertion that it needs to change. In my world, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. We don't just get to say "I think this!" and have it be gospel until proven wrong. If you are making the claim, give us the evidence to support it. It doesn't work the other way around.



Critter said:


> My biggest problem is that once areas become monuments they are just a very short step away from becoming a National Park


While I guess this is technically true, it is not more true than the Uintas being one step away from being made a national park as well. Monuments and Parks are created in very different ways (most of the time). I say most of the time because congress has the ability to create a national monument as well if it chooses.

I guess we are going to go down the hypothetical and philosophical roads here, so here is mine. I'm not against National Monuments. I never have been. I am against presidential abuse of executive power, and I think the Antiquities Act needs to be repealed and/or amended to ensure that presidents don't overdue it. I 100% believe that both the GSENM and BENM went beyond the plain language of the Antiquities Act. Congress needs to take back its constitutionally granted power and quit giving the president license to command what happens. And that goes for presidents on both sides of the isle, equally.

I'd still be interested to see the specific antiquities that are being left to be raped and pillaged right now since the monument was downsized that need the National Monument designation to protect them in the Bears Ears region. If they are there, let's hear about them and work together to protect them.


----------



## paddler

I agree that NM are not necessarily converted to NP. Some have been, many haven't. I don't favor a NP in the area, I want it open to hunting, fishing and all other traditional forms of recreation/solitude.

V, you expressed curiousity about the antiquities in the area. My reading tells me there are artifacts throughout the area, which is enough for me to support the original designation. The tribal council, IIRC, wanted even more area protected. I'm okay with the boundaries set forth by Obama. If you wish to base a reduction of the NM on the basis of the location and density of artifacts, feel free to do some research. If you do that and wish to share, I'll be happy to look at your results.

Hey, TOTP!!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

The answer is yes, at some point they will get to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase and Biden will return both to their original boundaries IMO.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Critter said:


> My biggest problem is that once areas become monuments they are just a very short step away from becoming a National Park
> 
> There are other ways to keep development out. But as things stand now it is just a signature on a piece of paper that either denies it or advocates for it, and that right there will push the area into talks for a National Park.
> 
> Here in Colorado it was just a signature that created "Wilderness Study Areas" roads were cut off, and visitation is highly restricted to those who can afford the time and expense such as horses to go into them.


I am pro-National Monument for both Grand Staircase and Bears Ears, and anti a national park on either of them within any of their boundaries. I'll fight along side you to stop further designation in the areas and especially the step towards a NP, but I fully support returning the boundaries of both to their original designations.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Catherder said:


> Because a discussion of this nature during a time when a great many folks have white hot partisan emotions has a predictable result. I usually like the "near" political discussions on here about pertinent topics but right now I don't feel like getting into "it".
> 
> However, I will favor 2 thoughts on the subject before stepping away.
> 
> 1. The Biden administration will have 10,001 issues and crises upon taking office higher in priority than BENM. I wouldn't expect any action on the matter for some time into his term.
> 
> 2. Since there are already lawsuits filed on the Trump administrations actions, Bidens people will likely wait for those to be adjudicated. The judgements rendered will likely define what would be the best course of action to take if he were inclined to act on BENM and/or GSENM.


Agreed fully. It won't happen immediately, but it will happen. I also think it will happen quicker if Republicans retain the Senate. If Republicans retain the Senate it will slow other things his administration wants to do and they will be looking more towards the things they can accomplish. At some point in the next few years both boundaries will be returned to what they were IMO.


----------



## backcountry

I hope he shows more prudence than such controversial unilateral executive action. Yes, he has the legal authority but the consequences could expose how unwise such a decision would be. How these individual statesmen proceed will impact more than just national monument status.


----------



## Bax*

backcountry said:


> And then I'll have a daughter in the spring who I'll eventually teach to hunt and fish on these very lands. So it goes.


Im working with my daughter on this as well. She took online hunter's safety over the summer, but needs more practice shooting to pass the test.

I am hoping to convince her to hike Coyote Gulch next year as well. She loves it down there, but I havent ever taken her on some of the more extreme hikes yet... Guess Id better do it before I get too old.


----------



## Critter

Bax* said:


> Im working with my daughter on this as well. She took online hunter's safety over the summer, but needs more practice shooting to pass the test.
> 
> I am hoping to convince her to hike Coyote Gulch next year as well. She loves it down there, but I havent ever taken her on some of the more extreme hikes yet... Guess Id better do it before I get too old.


When I read these things about hunter/fishermen that have daughters instead of sons reminds me of one of the episodes of MASH. Old Colonel Potter only had a daughter who loved to go fishing with him. He was lamenting about how she finally decided not to go fishing anymore. He said that she stopped going when she realized that fish stink and boys didn't.


----------



## Packout

I'm not anti-monument. I'm "anti-swipe of a pen" and create something twice the size of Rhode Island. But silly me to dream that major changes should include bipartisan support in today's political climate. And, in my opinion, designating swaths of land larger than some states is a major change.


----------



## DallanC

Obama grabbed and took control of more land from Citizens than all previous presidents combined. One single area he closed to fishing and everything else, was nearly the size of ALASKA! 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument is 582,578 square miles... or 2.17 times the size of Texas.

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Congress needs to take back its constitutionally granted power and quit giving the president license to command what happens. And that goes for presidents on both sides of the isle, equally.


I could agree with this. I also would say that input from the judiciary on the scope of the Antiquities Act could help clarify what is allowable for presidents to do. That is why I answered as I did in the previous post. Such clarification may help to the Executive branch to act in a manner that doesn't result in short term radical changes that serve no one.

As it now stands, the monuments could theoretically yo-yo from small to large as we go through the Trump to Biden to Haley to Abrams administrations. Not good for anyone.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Obama grabbed and took control of more land from Citizens than all previous presidents combined. One single area he closed to fishing and everything else, was nearly the size of ALASKA!
> 
> Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument is 582,578 square miles... or 2.17 times the size of Texas.
> 
> -DallanC


Dallan, news flash. It's almost all water:

https://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/visit/welcome.html

Do you dislike conservation?



Catherder said:


> I could agree with this. * I also would say that input from the judiciary on the scope of the Antiquities Act could help clarify what is allowable for presidents to do. * That is why I answered as I did in the previous post. Such clarification may help to the Executive branch to act in a manner that doesn't result in short term radical changes that serve no one.
> 
> As it now stands, the monuments could theoretically yo-yo from small to large as we go through the Trump to Biden to Haley to Abrams administrations. Not good for anyone.


I believe that the discretion exercised by Presidents has been addressed in the courts. In no case have the courts interfered in NM designations. Presidents have been granted much latitude in exercising the powers vested in them by the Act. Presidents have never had any legal authority to reduce the size or rescind a NM unilaterally, so yo-yoing should not occur.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> Dallan, news flash. It's almost all water


Wait, the area I literally said "he closed to fishing" is made up of water???

Oye...

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> Presidents have never had any legal authority to reduce the size or rescind a NM unilaterally, so yo-yoing should not occur.


This statement is only true if the anti shrinkage people *win* in court. I am not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but from what I read, winning that lawsuit is *very* far from a foregone conclusion. How Biden or his successors on both sides handles questions about monument size and designation going forward, would be directly related to the judiciary's decision.

Having Biden promise the antis what they want and then ending the lawsuit puts the question back into the black box of the unknown, with possible yo-yoing and I don't think they would want to do that.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> This statement is only true if the anti shrinkage people *win* in court. I am not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but from what I read, winning that lawsuit is *very* far from a foregone conclusion. How Biden or his successors on both sides handles questions about monument size and designation going forward, would be directly related to the judiciary's decision.
> 
> Having Biden promise the antis what they want and then ending the lawsuit puts the question back into the black box of the unknown, with possible yo-yoing and I don't think they would want to do that.


I'm not an attorney, either. Wouldn't it be nice if a competent attorney would chime in here? But, there is no language in the Act that empowers a subsequent President to reduce or rescind a NM duly designated by a predecessor. True, some have be rescinded due to lack of utilization, others have been converted to NP. But there is no precedent for what Trump has tried to do, ie, unilaterally reduce a NM in the face of opposition. Given prior court decisions it's difficult to imagine a future court decision that curbs a President's power bestowed upon him by the Act. Anything could happen, of course, especially given the new SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see what happens here.


----------



## taxidermist

Maybe "someone" could deem Mt. Olympus and the Wasatch front a NP! It would put a stop to urban sprawl. Guess something good comes out of it.-O,-


----------



## PBH

DallanC said:


> Wait, the area I literally said "he closed to fishing" is made up of water???
> 
> Oye...
> 
> -DallanC


...well....you did refer to the amount of "land" Obama designated...

(sorry - I think he got you on that one)


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I'm not an attorney, either. Wouldn't it be nice if a competent attorney would chime in here?


I've never been sued for malpractice. Just sayin...


----------



## DallanC

PBH said:


> ...well....you did refer to the amount of "land" Obama designated...


https://qz.com/881165/map-obama-established-more-national-monuments-than-any-other-president/



> In his final public address as the US president on Tuesday, Barack Obama ticked off a number of accomplishments from his eight years in office. Obamacare, the Iran nuclear deal, and the death of Osama Bin Laden were among them. But one unsung aspect of Obama's legacy is the millions of acres of protected lands he'll leave behind.
> 
> On Dec. 28, Obama designated 1.65 million acres of land-Gold Butte in Nevada and Bears Ears in Utah-as protected national monuments. The additions bring the total number of national monuments established by Obama to 26, more than any president since Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act in 1906.
> 
> *Those 26 monuments amount to 88.3 million acres; Obama has also added 465.2 million acres to existing monuments. In total, he has designated more land, by hundreds of millions of acres, than any other president.*
> 
> National monuments aren't always statues or buildings; they can also be vast stretches of canyon, desert, or *ocean*. This variety is made possible by the Antiquities Act, which gives each president executive authority to protect federal lands from development by designating monuments. The law was a response to widespread theft of historic artifacts, largely in the American southwest.


Either way you want to read my original comment, literal land, or total acreage of monuments... Obama designated more than every other president combined.

-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Which means less area protected from development and no hunting in the NP. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.


Development is a non-issue. Those resources are under federal guidelines and if an administration does not want them developed, they won't be. A moratorium will be issued to block any development within a certain radius of the current boundaries.

It's a bigger issue if the use designation as it stands change...


----------



## Ray

Ultimately, I don’t think it matters what Biden does, we’ll have a new president in 4 years as he’ll either be dead by the next election (in which case kamala will be president) or he’ll be voted out. I doubt that man will see a 2nd term, kamala, maybe but not Biden.

Any overreach done by this administration will be fixed by the next, then the one after the next will change his/hers. it’s a pendulum that’s constantly swinging.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/11/10/with-biden-win-utah/


----------



## Vanilla

Ray said:


> it's a pendulum that's constantly swinging.


Which is why Congress needs to step up and do their constitutional job here, and quit giving away their constitutional power to another that allows for that.

But there again I'm hitting on a philosophy that assumes people actually care about the constitution. I know some here don't.


----------



## Ray

Vanilla said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's a pendulum that's constantly swinging.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Congress needs to step up and do their constitutional job here, and quit giving away their constitutional power to another that allows for that.
> 
> But there again I'm hitting on a philosophy that assumes people actually care about the constitution. I know some here don't.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's disturbing to me how eager people are to give up their constitutional rights these days.


----------



## backcountry

I actually agree with Ray and Vanilla. We are in a death spiral. I fall into the camp of calling for an intentional detente on these extremely controversial land management issues at the national level. There is no long term win if we keep focusing on undoing the previous administration's policy. We desperately need to deescalate national politics.

That said, given jurisprudence and history, Biden would likely be legally and constitutionally fine to extend BENM. I just hope he doesn't. Until we simmer down I'm against expansive designations as its just simply been overused and has catalyzed a resistance that severely limits the buy-in needed to make those policies sustainable and therefor meaningful.

I just don't think these conversations will have short term impact beyond exposing many of us are done with the current tribalism. That does matter even if it will still play out on the national stage. I'm trying to get better at speaking across difference with good purpose. Its not easy in a society that weaponizes every difference and incentivizes partisan hostility. But its worth a try. Because the other option, for conservation alone, isn't pretty.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Ray said:


> Agreed. It's disturbing to me how eager people are to give up their constitutional rights these days.


It's because they don't know what they have...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> I actually agree with Ray and Vanilla. We are in a death spiral. I fall into the camp of calling for an intentional detente on these extremely controversial land management issues at the national level. There is no long term win if we keep focusing on undoing the previous administration's policy. We desperately need to deescalate national politics.
> 
> That said, given jurisprudence and history, Biden would likely be legally and constitutionally fine to extend BENM. I just hope he doesn't. Until we simmer down I'm against expansive designations as its just simply been overused and has catalyzed a resistance that severely limits the buy-in needed to make those policies sustainable and therefor meaningful.
> 
> I just don't think these conversations will have short term impact beyond exposing many of us are done with the current tribalism. That does matter even if it will still play out on the national stage. I'm trying to get better at speaking across difference with good purpose. Its not easy in a society that weaponizes every difference and incentivizes partisan hostility. But its worth a try. Because the other option, for conservation alone, isn't pretty.


I think this is fair. I'd be fine with GSENM remaining it's trimmed boundaries IF congress can pass and approve it. I think it would make it more acceptable to those who oppose it. Bears Ears however should be expanded from what it was trimmed to at least some. If you can get congressional approval of somewhere in the middle of where it was designated to where it is now, I'd also support that. I'm fine with compromise that keeps more people happy and supportive, but lets see Utah delegation step up and actually do something.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Bears Ears however should be expanded from what it was trimmed to at least some.


Again, what specific antiquities are being destroyed that need protection that don't currently have it? This is the statutory language that gives the president authority to do what he does:



Antiquities Act said:


> 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.


This isn't just a "I like national monuments and I don't like drilling, so I get to declare a monument." What specific objects are not in "proper care and management" right now in that area? If we're going to go with one's claim of a Native American arrowhead is probably in the ground somewhere there, then declare our entire state a national monument and be done.


----------



## Vanilla

Ray said:


> Agreed. It's disturbing to me how eager people are to give up their constitutional rights these days.


We are not talking constitutional rights here. We are talking about specifically articulated constitutional powers of our government. The president does not have constitutional authority or power to designate monuments. The only reason he can do it is because Congress, the body with the constitutional authority and power to do it, passed a law saying he could. Congress delegated it's power through statute. It probably had a purpose 114 years ago when it happened, but that ship has sailed. Time to get things back where they belong. If we are truly worried about emergency needs to protect, then something like what Rob Bishop (I can't believe I'm saying this...) proposed limiting the size to a specific acreage until Congress can act is the way to do it. Clearly some recent presidents have completely ignored the plain language of "in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."


----------



## High Desert Elk

Vanilla said:


> Again, what specific antiquities are being destroyed that need protection that don't currently have it? This is the statutory language that gives the president authority to do what he does:
> 
> This isn't just a "I like national monuments and I don't like drilling, so I get to declare a monument." What specific objects are not in "proper care and management" right now in that area? If we're going to go with one's claim of a Native American arrowhead is probably in the ground somewhere there, then declare our entire state a national monument and be done.


Using common sense and logic???

Stop the madness!!!


----------



## paddler

Yes, Congress used its Constitutionally delegated authority to legislate when they passed the Antiquities Act and it was signed into law in 1906 by TR. The raison d'etre for the Act was the inability of Congress to protect Chaco Canyon from looters. Obama designated Bears Ears very late in his term, and did so because once again Congress was unable to come to a compromise. So, saying that the Act is unnecessary is not supported by evidence, as gridlock in Congress is as bad as it's ever been. I'm confused by those who say that anything done by Obama in the designation of BE was unconstitutional.

Further, it's not clear that any pendulum exists regarding the Antiquities Act. Trump asserted power that he does not have. There is no language in the Act or our Constitution, nor have there been any court decisions supporting his actions. Of course, he doesn't care about the Constitution, see the Emoluments Clause. It would be helpful for the courts to clarify this issue. I doubt very much the courts will uphold the right of a subsequent President to second guess his predecessor. If they do, it will essentially gut the Act, and that would be a bad thing, IMO.

Some people here seem to think that a President exercising the powers granted under the Act is a bad thing. I don't understand that, either. We don't own these lands, we're here for only a brief moment. A NM protects these lands for our children's children's children. I got no problem with that.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> https://qz.com/881165/map-obama-established-more-national-monuments-than-any-other-president/
> 
> Either way you want to read my original comment, literal land, or total acreage of monuments... Obama designated more than every other president combined.
> 
> -DallanC


So, Dallan, I wonder if you noticed that the article you quoted actually had more to say. To wit:

*The vast majority of the acreage designated by Obama and Bush is at sea, including the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, tiny islands, and underwater preserves about 1,000 miles west of Hawaii. Bush originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres, then Obama expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Those kinds of expansions are fairly common, and often transcend party lines.
*
Again, I have no problem with NMs.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://qz.com/881165/map-obama-established-more-national-monuments-than-any-other-president/
> 
> Either way you want to read my original comment, literal land, or total acreage of monuments... Obama designated more than every other president combined.
> 
> -DallanC
> 
> 
> 
> So, Dallan, I wonder if you noticed that the article you quoted actually had more to say. To wit:
> 
> *The vast majority of the acreage designated by Obama and Bush is at sea, including the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, tiny islands, and underwater preserves about 1,000 miles west of Hawaii. Bush originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres, then Obama expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Those kinds of expansions are fairly common, and often transcend party lines.
> *
> Again, I have no problem with NMs.
Click to expand...

Dallan's statement is still correct


----------



## Vanilla

Don’t confuse him with facts Ray.


----------



## paddler

Seems our discussion is topical:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/11/10/with-biden-win-utah/

Most of the people who favor congressional action ignore the fact that congress failed to act for years, which is why Obama was compelled to act. The same forces that led to the passage of the Act persist today, which is why it is still needed. V stated "that ship has sailed" without bothering to explain why he said it. There was no basis for the statement, it defies reason. Witness the statements made by Pollock. The same arguments were made when the Grand Canyon was designated by TR on January 11, 1908. There will always be locals with an over-developed sense of entitlement and those who wish to exploit our lands for profit.

The only question is whether Trump acted legally. He has led a life of criminal and fraudulent behavior, his reductions show a similar disregard for law and precedent.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> Dallan's statement is still correct


I don't care much for out of context quotes. Makes me think the author is being less than transparent, trying to hide something. As in this case.


----------



## Vanilla

Precedent, huh? Do you know what that word means? 

Because monuments have been modified (both enlarged and diminished) many, many times. And it’s been happening ever since the Act was passed. So again, do you know what “precedent” means?


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Precedent, huh? Do you know what that word means?
> 
> Because monuments have been modified (both enlarged and diminished) many, many times. And it's been happening ever since the Act was passed. So again, do you know what "precedent" means?


Okay, knucklehead, we've covered this many times before. Please cite a precedent for a president unilaterally reducing the size of a monument in the face of widespread resistance. Have any such reductions been challenged in court? Any case law? Any language in the Act permitting this? Or to use one of your favorites, any mention of this in the Constitution? Show me where in the Constitution it says a president can unilaterally reduce a monument. You should know this stuff.


----------



## Vanilla

Outright grade school playground name calling now, huh? Usually your personal attacks attempt (but fail) to be much more subtle. Show me where the constitution says a president may unilaterally designate a monument. (Spoiler alert: it ain't there!)

I much prefer scholarly articles with citation to sources than your preferred opinion pieces from the hacks at the Tribune. Here is some easy reading for you on the topic. It will answer your questions.

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=uclr

Reduction of national monuments by executive action under the Antiquities Act has happened MANY times before President Trump did it. Your kind would like us to believe it's never happened before, but that isn't true. Precedent suggests it's possible, if you understand what precedent means. I'm not convinced you do. Good luck in your quest to catch that tail of yours!


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Outright grade school playground name calling now, huh? Usually your personal attacks attempt (but fail) to be much more subtle. Show me where the constitution says a president may unilaterally designate a monument. (Spoiler alert: it ain't there!)
> 
> I much prefer scholarly articles with citation to sources than your preferred opinion pieces from the hacks at the Tribune. Here is some easy reading for you on the topic. It will answer your questions.
> 
> https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=uclr
> 
> Reduction of national monuments by executive action under the Antiquities Act has happened MANY times before President Trump did it. Your kind would like us to believe it's never happened before, but that isn't true. Precedent suggests it's possible, if you understand what precedent means. I'm not convinced you do. Good luck in your quest to catch that tail of yours!


My questions remains unanswered.

From your article:

*Thus, even though presidential authority under the Antiquities Act
has been questioned numerous times, the Supreme Court has only
bothered to address this question thrice. Each time, the Court decidedly
upheld the president's authority to designate or expand national
monuments of scientific or historical interest.*

Reading the rest of the article clearly demonstrates bias on the part of the author. The courts have never addressed the question of whether a president can unilaterally reduce a monument in the face of opposition. In the case of the Mount Olympus NM, for instance, it was reduced to allow logging to help with the war effort. The arguments were made by local timber interests, so they could be seen as opportunism, but that was the ostensible reason. The reduction was not challenged in court for obvious reasons. Note that the area was restored and subsequently made a National Park, which occupies three times the size of the shrunken NM.


----------



## backcountry

Yeah, the left lost me with their rhetoric on that one. We have to be transparent and accurate with our assessments and Trump hasn't been singular in his reduction. The scale seems new (could be wrong, running off memory without double checking) but the actual act of reduction is literally precedented. 

The battle lines have been drawn by partisans but I'm done believing we have to abide them in these cases. There is complexity to consider and it doesn't lead to easy solutions. But I also don't buy pants with political slogans on the tag.


----------



## Kwalk3

backcountry said:


> Yeah, the left lost me with their rhetoric on that one. We have to be transparent and accurate with our assessments and Trump hasn't been singular in his reduction. The scale seems new (could be wrong, running off memory without double checking) but the actual act of reduction is literally precedented.
> 
> The battle lines have been drawn by partisans but I'm done believing we have to abide them in these cases. There is complexity to consider and it doesn't lead to easy solutions. But I also don't buy pants with political slogans on the tag.


It's easier for the partisans to ignore the nuance/complexity because the details may not align perfectly with the narrative.

TOTP!


----------



## Ray

Vanilla said:


> Don't confuse him with facts Ray.


Now this gave me a good laugh!


----------



## PBH

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1...-wants-biden-to-restore-bears-ears-boundaries

Looks like the adjusted boundaries in San Juan county are allowing the new commission members to go down a new road. Things are going to be interesting in that corner of Utah for the foreseeable future.

Next up? I see changes coming to Garfield and Wayne counties too. The demographics of those areas are changing, and thus too will the way their leaders choose to manage.


----------



## backcountry

Given the social media and activist pressure the last month to nominate a native american to lead the Department of Interior I could see Bears Ears actually becoming a priority sooner than I initially thought. It wouldn't really take much work, on the administration's part, to redeclare the original boundaries.

PBH, are you talking about GSENM changes as well or something else? Have those counties changed demographics that much since Trump took office?


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Given the social media and activist pressure the last month to nominate a native american to lead the Department of Interior I could see Bears Ears actually becoming a priority sooner than I initially thought.


This is a good point, and I'm sure she would talk to different "locals" when she does the obligatory fact finding visit.

As I stated to Paddler though, I still feel existing litigation will be a factor in what Bidens team does as it could define some of the boundaries of presidential power in the issue of the Antiquities Act.


----------



## backcountry

The litigation is a caveat with potentially huge impact. Can the plantiffs end their lawsuit this far into the process without severe censures?

If the lawsuits move to a ruling they still may not be broad enough in scope to affect Biden's ability to extend the boundaries. And I think he could always just declare another monument in the exclusions and let them be united or absorbed into the BENM later.

Either way it's a treacherous early choice. Given how heated our divisions are I'm not sure there is much prudence to rush into the decision from a long term sustainability standpoint as that requires buy-in across stakeholder groups. A quick move to redesignate is likely to just further inflame tensions. But that's ultimately a choice the administration gets to make as there is no chance of revising the Antiquities Act under the new Congress.


----------



## PBH

backcountry said:


> PBH, are you talking about GSENM changes as well or something else? Have those counties changed demographics that much since Trump took office?


what I meant is that those counties, due to outdoor and recreational opportunities, have attracted more and more "liberal" residents. We hear constantly that the schools in those areas are getting smaller and smaller (look at Escalante High School), but what we don't hear is that more and more homes are being built. Retirement homes. People from "outside" the local circles. More liberal people that tend to lean "blue". Enough so that it won't be long before a tide changes, and those traditional "red" areas will start to change colors. The town of Boulder isn't exactly a stronghold of the GOP, and Escalante is far behind. As more and more tourism replaces ranching, politics will soon follow.


----------



## backcountry

Thx.

Boulder has changed in an extreme way in the last 15 years. Escalante will be interesting to watch the next decade. 

Tourism isn't the panacea everyone makes it out to be. It can definitely catalyze struggling economies but even that isn't great given how many low paying jobs it relies upon. But as you hinted, the socioeconomic influence is rarely subtle. It can completely displace traditional communities in short order. I'm guessing a few families made off like bandits and left quite a few in the lurch dealing with the rapid changes in town. 

Fingers crossed Escalante doesn't turn into a Moab. I don't even enjoy going there anymore.

We both are watching how Cedar is struggling with the same pressures.


----------



## PBH

backcountry said:


> We both are watching how Cedar is struggling with the same pressures.


Unfortunately, we're going down that dreaded multi-family apartment complex road right now. Today: Cedar City. Tomorrow: Cedar West Valley City. 

If I ever hear a politician say "let's regress. Let's shrink. Let's reduce" I'd vote for them!! I guess it's a natural progression to go from Real Estate Agent to county commissioner, city council, etc....


----------



## backcountry

Not much choice on high density given how many families are priced out of home ownership.

And without a fairly "progressive" role in government control over real estate and growth the change is almost inevitable. Too much money in breaking up family lands for most families to hold out. And we both know how many real estate agents are part of those family lines. 

I have yet to see a locale succeed at resisting these trends. Recreational tourism just speeds up the process.

I haven't been involved myself but friends who have participated in city and county meetings have been shocked by what they observe as relatively lenient recusal and conflict of interest standards.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> The litigation is a caveat with potentially huge impact. Can the plantiffs end their lawsuit this far into the process without severe censures?
> 
> If the lawsuits move to a ruling they still may not be broad enough in scope to affect Biden's ability to extend the boundaries. And I think he could always just declare another monument in the exclusions and let them be united or absorbed into the BENM later.
> 
> Either way it's a treacherous early choice. Given how heated our divisions are I'm not sure there is much prudence to rush into the decision from a long term sustainability standpoint as that requires buy-in across stakeholder groups. A quick move to redesignate is likely to just further inflame tensions. But that's ultimately a choice the administration gets to make as there is no chance of revising the Antiquities Act under the new Congress.


As there is no legal precedent or justification for Trump's attempt to reduce BE and GS against opposition, I'd love to see Biden rescind the executive order. It wouldn't be the only thing Trump has done that begs immediate reversal. As on another thread, January can't get here soon enough.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> The litigation is a caveat with potentially huge impact. Can the plantiffs end their lawsuit this far into the process without severe censures?


Yes, they can. A plaintiff can choose to quit prosecuting a claim any time. Judges may get pissy about it in certain circumstances, especially if there seems to be nefarious motives in it. But the Biden administration is not the plaintiff here, right? They would have to defend President Trump's action that is being challenged for the case to continue, and I don't know if they have interest to do so. If I were the plaintiff, I would want the answer and I'd be asking the new administration to stay in. Last thing we need is a seesaw on these issues in perpetuity. And then in 2025 we can have the new GOP president rescind it, and so on and so forth.

This bouncing back and forth between administrations is exactly why the Antiquities Act needs to be updated and specified. The specific language already in it is widely ignored, and we can do better.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Yes, they can. A plaintiff can choose to quit prosecuting a claim any time. Judges may get pissy about it in certain circumstances, especially if there seems to be nefarious motives in it. But the Biden administration is not the plaintiff here, right? They would have to defend President Trump's action that is being challenged for the case to continue, and I don't know if they have interest to do so. If I were the plaintiff, I would want the answer and I'd be asking the new administration to stay in. Last thing we need is a seesaw on these issues in perpetuity. And then in 2025 we can have the new GOP president rescind it, and so on and so forth.
> 
> This bouncing back and forth between administrations is exactly why the Antiquities Act needs to be updated and specified. The specific language already in it is widely ignored, and we can do better.


I do not see the Biden administration defending the indefensible.


----------



## backcountry

Thx Vanilla.

I guess I'm curious if the plantiffs will remove their lawsuit if they believe Biden will go ahead and redesignate the original boundaries. If their goal was always the original boundaries then the uncertainty of the ruling could damage their goals now.

But I agree... I'd rather have some certainty as our tribalism only seems to be getting stronger. A ruling would really help answer some questions.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> Thx Vanilla.
> 
> I guess I'm curious if the plantiffs will remove their lawsuit if they believe Biden will go ahead and redesignate the original boundaries. If their goal was always the original boundaries then the uncertainty of the ruling could damage their goals now.


Suppose, hypothetically, that Biden came in and on day 1 put back in place the original monument, it would make the proceedings moot and would likely be dismissed, regardless of how the plaintiff felt.



backcountry said:


> But I agree... I'd rather have some certainty as our tribalism only seems to be getting stronger. A ruling would really help answer some questions.


Biden ran on a platform of uniting the country again. His major selling point to moderates and independents was that he would work across the isle and restore cooperation to the country again. Taking him at his word (dangerous for any politician, I know), diving right into very controversial issues with executive action would probably not be high on his priority list. What he could do to put his money where his mouth is, however, is lead a charge for a bipartisan, common sense amendment in congress to the Antiquities Act. If he wants to show he is ready to lead and work towards unity, there are a handful of issues where there is room for compromise, and the AA seems like one of them.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

PBH said:


> what I meant is that those counties, due to outdoor and recreational opportunities, have attracted more and more "liberal" residents. We hear constantly that the schools in those areas are getting smaller and smaller (look at Escalante High School), but what we don't hear is that more and more homes are being built. Retirement homes. People from "outside" the local circles. More liberal people that tend to lean "blue". Enough so that it won't be long before a tide changes, and those traditional "red" areas will start to change colors. The town of Boulder isn't exactly a stronghold of the GOP, and Escalante is far behind. As more and more tourism replaces ranching, politics will soon follow.


Most of the San Juan County shift was due to the un-gerrymandering of suppressing the Native American vote. I'm glad their voice is now being heard, and hope it continues to be. The amount of gerrymandering in this state in favor of one party is wrong, and I'll be glad as the state moves to a more moderate and reasonable form of government where one party doesn't hold all the cards and only certain voices are heard here.


----------



## Critter

You will find that in any state where one party or the other even holds a slim majority that gerrymandering is going to happen. The ones that are in power will always try and draw the lines to benefit their ideals 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Critter said:


> You will find that in any state *(deleted for clarification)* that gerrymandering is going to happen. The ones that are in power will always try and draw the lines to benefit their ideals


Fixed it for you, critter. This goes on in every state every ten years. The most important elections are those that allow legislatures to redraw districts. Get ready for some tears to be shed across the country about how "unfair" the other side was.


----------



## backcountry

To be fair though....some places are so egregious that lawsuits actually succeed at proving guilt of the distasteful practice. 

I don't envy any person involved in the process. It's a herculean task to effectively redraw districts that accurately reflect a state's citizens. Throw in partisan rancor and it's understandable how the process becomes polluted.


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Thx Vanilla.
> If their goal was always the original boundaries then the uncertainty of the ruling *could damage their goals* now.


Not necessarily. If the plaintiffs win, then obviously the boundaries go back to the Obama decision and Biden is basically off the hook for having to make a tough political decision. He also would have a better idea what the courts will let him do in other AA decisions. However, if the plaintiffs *lose*, then that simply (or maybe not so simply) means that the court rules that a president can change monument boundaries at his/her discretion, which means also that Biden could then go ahead and change things back if he so wishes. Either way the activists ultimately get what they want if Biden is on their side.

As has been mentioned here, a court decision could be helpful in crafting a legislative remedy that hopefully ends the yo-yo effect. Maybe Biden and Mitt will get together and come up with something useful and bipartisan. At least it can be hoped.


----------



## backcountry

I definitely see that. I do think a court ruling that agrees with the POTUS power to reduce monuments could be pretty devastating to many preservationist activist. I think many environmentalist fear such a ruling because of what it means for a sustainable process of designation. The yo-yo that would fortify could be pretty horrific in our new world of eroding traditions.

That said, despite what others have implied, presidents have reduced boundaries before and the process maintained integrity. It's rare but not unprecedented. 

I have no clue how the courts would rule. I really don't have a dog in that fight as I don't believe monuments are the best or only tool for many of these goals. Like y'all I'm hoping we find a path forward. I'm not holding my breath that an old school bipartisanship will prevail but there do seem to be some positive movements right now to give me hope. 

Is this where I say get off my lawn?


----------



## Brettski7

paddler said:


> I do not see the Biden administration defending the indefensible.


....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Looks like this may move along much quicker than I expected or even hoped. January 20th can't come soon enough:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/12/02/san-juan-county-asks/


----------



## PBH

^^

Wasn't that already noted back on page 10?


----------



## Vanilla

He doesn’t track things very well. Be patient.


----------



## middlefork

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...lic-lands-issues/ar-BB1bBgc8?ocid=hplocalnews


----------



## paddler

PBH said:


> ^^
> 
> Wasn't that already noted back on page 10?


I didn't read the previous link. My link was on the front page of the Trib when I posted it yesterday. Here I thought I had a scoop.;-)

This will be interesting to watch. Once again the exploiters and our paid for local politicos will be up in arms if Biden follows through.


----------



## Catherder

It's official on the Interior Secretary pick. I'm sure we will be hearing more about this locally in the near future.

http://politics.earthlink.net/chann...20201217/1e34c5dd-6aa2-4d4c-8bdc-83006f469e01

As stated previously, I bet she has a different definition of "locals" than Zinke did.


----------



## PBH

How very interesting. Honestly, it's about time our native brothers and sisters get some representation!

San Juan county must be freaking out about now.


----------



## backcountry

I agree with PBH about representation. 

Wait and see time on BENM. I'm nervous if the administration moves forward with it but I'm willing to admit that concern could be misplaced. Only time will tell.


----------



## paddler

Another great pick by Biden. Refreshing to see him choose people actually qualified for the positions they will fill. What a nice change. I'm thinking BENM and GSNM will be high priorities for her.

Catherder is correct about her being "local". She ran for Congress as a 35th generation New Mexican. Cool.


----------



## Critter

It will be interesting if she looks at what the Ute tribe reservation boundaries are. A number of years ago they put in a claim that took up most of the norther half of the state.


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> San Juan county must be freaking out about now.


I bet the southern part of the county is ecstatic!

I'm sure that the "Lyman" crowd is, uh, a bit less enthusiastic.


----------



## backcountry

I wonder how confirmation will go. I'm sure there will be criticisms but denying that pick is a path fraught with a lot of baggage, to say the least.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> I wonder how confirmation will go. I'm sure there will be criticisms but denying that pick is a path fraught with a lot of baggage, to say the least.


I'm a believer that unless the senate has a true, justified non-political non-partisan reason to reject an appointment to the cabinet, that person should be confirmed. The president has a right to surround himself with the people he chooses to push his agenda, for the most part. That is good for both Democratic presidents and Republican presidents alike.

I don't even want to speculate on what one of those reasons might be, but it would need to be a pretty big deal and clear to all reasonable people that is is a bad idea for that person to be in that position. Otherwise, I say confirm the cabinet appointments and move on.


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> I wonder how confirmation will go. I'm sure there will be criticisms but denying that pick is a path fraught with a lot of baggage, to say the least.


Since Rep. Haaland is a member of the House of Representatives, and the current "D" margin is narrow, I doubt the "R"'s will fight it too much, unless something egregious is found. Yes, I know that another "D" will be appointed by New Mexico's governor, but that takes time and the interim gives the "R"'s better numbers in the House for a short time.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I'm a believer that unless the senate has a true, justified non-political non-partisan reason to reject an appointment to the cabinet, that person should be confirmed. The president has a right to surround himself with the people he chooses to push his agenda, for the most part. That is good for both Democratic presidents and Republican presidents alike.
> 
> I don't even want to speculate on what one of those reasons might be, but it would need to be a pretty big deal and clear to all *reasonable* people that is is a bad idea for that person to be in that position. Otherwise, I say confirm the cabinet appointments and move on.


Agreed, but we're unfortunately living in unreasonable times.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Agreed, but we're unfortunately living in unreasonable times.


Ha!


----------



## backcountry

Not exactly a small shot across the bow on Tuesday. I foresee serious escalation in SE Utah.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Another great pick by Biden. Refreshing to see him choose people actually qualified for the positions they will fill. What a nice change. I'm thinking BENM and GSNM will be high priorities for her.
> 
> Catherder is correct about her being "local". She ran for Congress as a 35th generation New Mexican. Cool.


Wrong. She is part of what is wrong with NM.



Catherder said:


> Since Rep. Haaland is a member of the House of Representatives, and the current "D" margin is narrow, I doubt the "R"'s will fight it too much, unless something egregious is found. Yes, I know that another "D" will be appointed by New Mexico's governor, but that takes time and the interim gives the "R"'s better numbers in the House for a short time.


Actually, it looks to be an open election and a potential contender is exactly what NM and this country needs. Would also be the ideal replacement for MEchelle lujan gruesome in 2022...


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Not exactly a small shot across the bow on Tuesday. I foresee serious escalation in SE Utah.


Phil Lyman getting a pardon?


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Phil Lyman getting a pardon?


At least he already did his jail time and paid off the fine. He's been pardoned, but he'll always be a POS.


----------



## backcountry

Catherder said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly a small shot across the bow on Tuesday. I foresee serious escalation in SE Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Lyman getting a pardon?
Click to expand...

Yep. It adds fuel to multiple fires in that region. I think that region will be an indicator for how various camps proceed in the months and years ahead.


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Yep. It adds fuel to multiple fires in that region. I think that region will be an indicator for how various camps proceed in the months and years ahead.


Yeah, it won't help things, for sure. Rep. Lyman already has plenty of fire in his belly for hyperbole though. He was one of the guys nodding in agreement with the "Herbert is Hitler" meme for the Governors temerity to put in place some covid health restrictions. Since Noel retired, he apparently ascended to the throne of most outrageous legislator from the 435.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

With Biden's Interior Secretary pick, i very much expect the boundaries of GS and BE to be returned to original boundaries. The local tribe in the area and a few councils supporting it, and the Native American voice in the area supporting it, I'd very much expect it. Don't be surprised if it isn't solidified through congress as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/17/deb-haaland-interior-secretary-biden/


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> With Biden's Interior Secretary pick, i very much expect the boundaries of GS and BE to be returned to original boundaries. The local tribe in the area and a few councils supporting it, and the Native American voice in the area supporting it, I'd very much expect it. Don't be surprised if it isn't solidified through congress as well.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/17/deb-haaland-interior-secretary-biden/


We have lots of work ahead, obliterating all of Trump's "legacy". Such as it is. This was just one example of his destructive policies, hopefully to be reversed soon.


----------



## paddler

I've been reading about the executive orders Biden will be signing tomorrow, but haven't seen any mention of restoring the monuments. I guess the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal, immigration, etc, take precedence, but I'm confident he'll get around to BE and GS fairly soon.


----------



## Vanilla

For a president that campaigned on unity and spoke openly today about being all in on unifying people, it would sure cut against that to immediately dive into a very divisive issue like monuments. 

Wouldn’t be the first time a politician lied about their intentions, but I’m hoping for better on this one. There will be an appropriate time and place for that discussion down the road, I believe. I don’t think it is on his top priority list, however.


----------



## backcountry

It definitely doesn't need to be in the first 100 days. Only time will tell but I haven't seen a hearing list yet and I can't imagine the Dept. of Interior is the most critical right now as there is a window for individuals to be in the "acting" designation temporarily. 

May cooler heads prevail.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> For a president that campaigned on unity and spoke openly today about being all in on unifying people, it would sure cut against that to immediately dive into a very divisive issue like monuments.
> 
> Wouldn't be the first time a politician lied about their intentions, but I'm hoping for better on this one. There will be an appropriate time and place for that discussion down the road, I believe. I don't think it is on his top priority list, however.


Well, unity is nice. But reversing Trump's capricious and vindictive actions shouldn't be deferred in the name of "unity". The reductions were unjustified and a slap in the face to many in the region. Even the Grand County commission has changed its tune and now supports restoring the monuments. Doing so would not make Biden a "liar", V, that assertion is ridiculous:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/01/12/utahs-grand-county-asks/

Unity doesn't demand meeting people half way; I feel no obligation to compromise with conspiracy theorists. Fully 70% of Republican voters don't trust the results of the last election, despite the fact that it was one of the most secure in history:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure.

I reckon there are likely a few "Stop The Steal" folks on this forum, maybe even some Qanon believers. There can be no unity if people don't believe in truth and facts, and those who deal in lies cannot expect sympathy from those who do not.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I feel no obligation to compromise


You could have just written this and been done and saved yourself a lot of unnecessary fluff. Everyone on this forum understands your position on unity and not having any interest in it. You never have and you never will. You're a divider by nature. Always have been, always will be.

But the president didn't campaign for your vote. He had it before you even knew he did. And if he simply champions causes that push more divide, then yes, his campaign and his great speech today were lies. I tend to think he's going to do his best to live up to those promises though. Only time will tell.


----------



## Brettski7

Truly a sad day today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> You could have just written this and been done and saved yourself a lot of unnecessary fluff. Everyone on this forum understands your position on unity and not having any interest in it. You never have and you never will. You're a divider by nature. Always have been, always will be.
> 
> But the president didn't campaign for your vote. He had it before you even knew he did. And if he simply champions causes that push more divide, then yes, his campaign and his great speech today were lies. I tend to think he's going to do his best to live up to those promises though. Only time will tell.


Unity does not mean agreement on everything. The Native American voice around Bears Ears and several local councils APPROVE of the monument being returned to its original boundaries. The conservative lopsided state legislature is who doesn't approve of it. The state has no issues usurping "local control" when those policies don't align with what they like. See Salt Lake City and county constantly. They gerrymandered the Native American voice out of these areas as good as they've gerrymandered SLC having proper representation in Washington, McAdams should be seated not Burgess Quanon Owens, only a judge ruled against them and now the Native American voice is actually on county and city councils in the area being given a voice. The conservative/white male getting his way is not how "unity" is going to be defined. I know plenty of reasonable people who disagree with me politically, unity does not require me agreeing with them on things, quite the contrary, it means agreeing to disagree civilly.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Brettski7 said:


> Truly a sad day today.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's not. Biden will not be worse/much better than most Presidents. Your life will go on. America will go on. Instead of being scared/negative be open to giving it a shot. I agreed with some things Trump did, and really really disagreed with him on many things. Trump brought us to some of the saddest points in decades. We will see how Biden governors but day 1 is not a sad day. Let's get a grip.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

On day 1, the review begins on both monuments

"Biden's order directs "the Department of Interior to protect our nation's treasures by reviewing the boundaries and conditions of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, Bears Ears, Northeast Canyons, and Seamounts Marine National Monuments and placing a temporary moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/01/20/biden-starts-process/


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> On day 1, the review begins on both monuments
> 
> "Biden's order directs "the Department of Interior to protect our nation's treasures by reviewing the boundaries and conditions of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, Bears Ears, Northeast Canyons, and Seamounts Marine National Monuments and placing a temporary moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
> 
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2021/01/20/biden-starts-process/


Now that's awesome stuff right there. What a great day to be an American!

Now that the Democrats control Congress they can also overturn the provision in the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" that would allow drilling in the ANWR. If you recall, that legislation also gave tax cuts to the rich and ballooned our deficit. Truly a great accomplishment. BTW, the ANWR was signed into law by Carter, a much underappreciated president and someone I have long admired.


----------



## paddler

Brettski7 said:


> Truly a sad day today.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why do you say that? A Biden presidency will be much better for outdoorsmen than the previous occupant.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> Why do you say that? A Biden presidency will be much better for outdoorsmen than the previous occupant.


Lets see... I google pictures of Joe Bidens son Hunter and I see lots of crack pipes, drugs, alcohol, etc. Beyond the name of his son: Hunter, nothing really benefits outdoorsmen. The closest Joe Biden came to anything related to us is when he recommended firing off warning shots with a shotgun to scare off intruders. That is illegal in all kinds of ways in most of the usa (brandishing, firing within city limits, firing within minimum distance of other structures and buildings).

Google Trumps sons and I see lots of actual hunting pictures. They did a huge amount of hunting, with more species than I can count. Both sons are huge advocates for hunters, lands remaining open for hunters, even Don Jr pushed hard for suppressors to be removed from the NFA.

Either way, I dont fear a Biden Presidency. Its going to be the Kamala Presidency very soon, thats what I fear. Ya'all didnt think old Nancy Pelosi was really setting policy regarding the 25th amendment to get rid of trump did ya?

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork

Executive orders should be reserved for things that have to be done and can't because of inaction by the legislative branch.

The Dems now have control of all. What's the rush? Push it through the legislature. If it can't handle the debate it does not make sense to do it.

I'm pretty sure we can all look at California and see what is in store for hunters and outdoorsmen.


----------



## Brettski7

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's not. Biden will not be worse/much better than most Presidents. Your life will go on. America will go on. Instead of being scared/negative be open to giving it a shot. I agreed with some things Trump did, and really really disagreed with him on many things. Trump brought us to some of the saddest points in decades. We will see how Biden governors but day 1 is not a sad day. Let's get a grip.


Truly sad day. And I'm not scared. There is a difference. But you know what they say about assumptions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 2full

It's the boundaries that Obama created that were lopsided.


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Lets see... I google pictures of Joe Bidens son Hunter and I see lots of crack pipes, drugs, alcohol, etc. Beyond the name of his son: Hunter, nothing really benefits outdoorsmen. The closest Joe Biden came to anything related to us is when he recommended firing off warning shots with a shotgun to scare off intruders. That is illegal in all kinds of ways in most of the usa (brandishing, firing within city limits, firing within minimum distance of other structures and buildings).
> 
> Google Trumps sons and I see lots of actual hunting pictures. They did a huge amount of hunting, with more species than I can count. Both sons are huge advocates for hunters, lands remaining open for hunters, even Don Jr pushed hard for suppressors to be removed from the NFA.
> 
> Either way, I dont fear a Biden Presidency. Its going to be the Kamala Presidency very soon, thats what I fear. Ya'all didnt think old Nancy Pelosi was really setting policy regarding the 25th amendment to get rid of trump did ya?
> 
> -DallanC


In case you were wondering, Joe Biden is President. DJTJ never will be. Maybe his girlfriend? She's a peach.



middlefork said:


> Executive orders should be reserved for things that have to be done and can't because of inaction by the legislative branch.
> 
> The Dems now have control of all. What's the rush? Push it through the legislature. If it can't handle the debate it does not make sense to do it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can all look at California and see what is in store for hunters and outdoorsmen.


Was that true of Trump's executive orders?



Brettski7 said:


> Truly sad day. And I'm not scared. There is a difference. But you know what they say about assumptions.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

What happened to all that "unity" talk?


----------



## DallanC

2full said:


> It's the boundaries that Obama created that were lopsided.


And encompassed 100,000 acres of private lands (Mostly SITLA but still).

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Well that didn't take long to turn into basic, hostile partisanship. Looks like I need to start a new bingo card.

To those arguing about definitions of unity....I don't disagree about the basic merits of the claims but the element lacking is context. I am largely in favor of the original boundaries but the wisdom in deploying them as Obama did, and now Biden, was problematic. I say that from the standpoint of sustainability and buy-in. The evidence for the criticism for Obama is self-evident given the obvious public record. If they rush this through as a Biden administration I see very few reasons why we won't see a similar tit-for-tat outcome. 

Much of the land management and conservation issues are centered in the West and its an understatement to say the political and social environment is a tender box right now. I don't expect some fairy tale concept of unity but restraint is a major part of considerate disagreement. Just like the last page of this thread, certain actions and statements will be seen as shots fired and the situation can and will escalate. 

Land management and designations don't live in a vacuum. For those who care about long term sustainability of such designations I can't imagine a less prudent time then now to move forward on this issue. But its all largely out of my control and I've learned to live with that fact.

Buyer beware.


----------



## middlefork

paddler said:


> .
> Was that true of Trump's executive orders?


Yes


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

2full said:


> It's the boundaries that Obama created that were lopsided.


Obama could have designated Trumps exact boundaries on Bears Ears and the same people would have been b******* and moaning. The truth is it's completely partisan on both ends and everyone just goes along with what "their guy" does. I am for what's best for the true sustainability of wildlife and wild places and I trust a full monument designation more than the anti-public land state of Utah reps. If Utah Republicans showed an ounce of giving a **** about our natural resources, public lands, and air I might hold a different opinion, but they'll fight for land transfers, coal ports, and wolves. PS I can't imagine sage grouse numbers are going to be doing very good either, so expect that to come knocking soon too.


----------



## Vanilla

middlefork said:


> The Dems now have control of all. What's the rush? Push it through the legislature. If it can't handle the debate it does not make sense to do it.


To bring back the focus to Bears Ears...this is EXACTLY how monuments should be created and managed. The way the constitution intended.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

DallanC said:


> Lets see... I google pictures of Joe Bidens son Hunter and I see lots of crack pipes, drugs, alcohol, etc. Beyond the name of his son: Hunter, nothing really benefits outdoorsmen. The closest Joe Biden came to anything related to us is when he recommended firing off warning shots with a shotgun to scare off intruders. That is illegal in all kinds of ways in most of the usa (brandishing, firing within city limits, firing within minimum distance of other structures and buildings).
> 
> Google Trumps sons and I see lots of actual hunting pictures. They did a huge amount of hunting, with more species than I can count. Both sons are huge advocates for hunters, lands remaining open for hunters, even Don Jr pushed hard for suppressors to be removed from the NFA.
> 
> Either way, I dont fear a Biden Presidency. Its going to be the Kamala Presidency very soon, thats what I fear. Ya'all didnt think old Nancy Pelosi was really setting policy regarding the 25th amendment to get rid of trump did ya?
> 
> -DallanC


I'm not going to delve too deep here because it'd get way to political. Making a point of emphasis a family members drug problems is garbage. We, including I, have watched people struggle with it. Biden's sons horrible issues are really not your concern, and he is not responsible for his kids choices just as you aren't for yours if they develop some horrible issue in their lives. PS Utah is one of the most opioid addicted states in America....but yes Biden's son!!!


----------



## Vanilla

1-I, 
What does that even mean? What measure do we use to figure out which states are most opioid addicted? 

Prescriptions dispensed? Overdose deaths? Self-hating and self-fulfilling prophecies? Whatcha thinking? Inquiring minds must know...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> 1-I,
> What does that even mean? What measure do we use to figure out which states are most opioid addicted?
> 
> Prescriptions dispensed? Overdose deaths? Self-hating and self-fulfilling prophecies? Whatcha thinking? Inquiring minds must know...


Some studies are overdose deaths per capita, some prescriptions dispensed per capita. We can DM if need be, but I probably better not take the thread further off.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> To bring back the focus to Bears Ears...this is EXACTLY how monuments should be created and managed. The way the constitution intended.


So if it passes through congress everyone should be happy? Because right now it absolutely can be solidified through congress. I would rather it is too btw.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Brettski7 said:


> Truly sad day. And I'm not scared. There is a difference. But you know what they say about assumptions.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So why not spell it out? Here or you're welcome to DM me your full thoughts.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So if it passes through congress everyone should be happy? Because right now it absolutely can be solidified through congress. I would rather it is too btw.


Has nothing to do with making everyone happy. It has to do with following the constitution and doing things the right way. You're never going to make everyone happy. But there is a reason we have checks and balances and constitutionally assigned powers. It's what sets our country apart from others. Please forgive me for being old fashioned and believing that document still has meaning.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Has nothing to do with making everyone happy. It has to do with following the constitution and doing things the right way. You're never going to make everyone happy. But there is a reason we have checks and balances and constitutionally assigned powers. It's what sets our country apart from others. Please forgive me for being old fashioned and believing that document still has meaning.


V, please, we've covered this point before, likely in this thread. Congress passes laws, one of which, the Antiquities Act, empowers the President to designate monuments, which Obama did and Clinton did before him. Their actions were legal and consistent with the Constitution. Trump, wanting in vain to erase Obama's legacy and benefit extraction industries, attempted to reduce the sizes of said monuments. His pettiness will not stand. Deal.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Their actions were legal and consistent with the Constitution. Trump, wanting in vain to erase Obama's legacy and benefit extraction industries, attempted to reduce the sizes of said monuments. His pettiness will not stand. Deal.


Let's assume that everything you said above is perfectly accurate, just for the sake of discussion. Your example above is EXACTLY why we need to return to the constitution and have those with the constitutional powers to do these things do them.


----------



## Vanilla

From the executive director of Friends of Cedar Mesa:

_"My hope is that the review is done thoughtfully with regard to the global significance of this area and how critical these resources are, and also with regard to how we may have permanent protection so that this is not a political football that gets tossed back and forth every four years," he said.

"In order for there to be a permanent solution, it would need some sort of congressional compromise. I won't speculate on what that compromise would look like. ... It is a deeply contentious issue so it would certainly not be easy to have something like that happen."_

Interesting that even the director of this group gets it...Return to the constitution. Do it the right way.

I'm less confident this morning that President Biden meant what he said than I was yesterday.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> From the executive director of Friends of Cedar Mesa:
> 
> _"My hope is that the review is done thoughtfully with regard to the global significance of this area and how critical these resources are, and also with regard to how we may have permanent protection so that this is not a political football that gets tossed back and forth every four years," he said.
> 
> "In order for there to be a permanent solution, it would need some sort of congressional compromise. I won't speculate on what that compromise would look like. ... It is a deeply contentious issue so it would certainly not be easy to have something like that happen."_
> 
> Interesting that even the director of this group gets it...Return to the constitution. Do it the right way.
> 
> I'm less confident this morning that President Biden meant what he said than I was yesterday.


Once again we're covering topics that have been covered before. Congress failed after many years of trying to work out a compromise over BE. Historically, Congress failed to protect antiquities in the southwest, which led to the Act. Please pay attention, review the thread.

Given our congressional delegation's reaction, in addition to Cox's, Reyes', to Biden's executive orders, it's not clear that any compromise will be reached.

Another solution would be to test in court a president's power to unilaterally reduce or rescind a monument despite widespread opposition. Maybe the five consolidated lawsuits should be allowed to play out. But we've said that before, too. Despite your repetitive assertions, BE was done in the right way, Trump's attempted reductions were not. As is true for most of his presidency.


----------



## Catherder

I realize the natural tendency today, especially for the Trump crowd, is to work oneself into a froth with Bidens every utterance and directive, but all that was said yesterday is that he is ordering a review. We don't know yet what that will yield, how he will go about making changes, and who he and Sec. Haaland will seek input from. 

TBH, I was mildly heartened last night watching the news as several stakeholders on both sides were interviewed about it. They all pointed out that having the monuments Yo-yo back and forth does nobody any good and spoke of coming to a final decision and going forward.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> From the executive director of Friends of Cedar Mesa:
> 
> _"My hope is that the review is done thoughtfully with regard to the global significance of this area and how critical these resources are, and also with regard to how we may have permanent protection so that this is not a political football that gets tossed back and forth every four years," he said.
> 
> "In order for there to be a permanent solution, it would need some sort of congressional compromise. I won't speculate on what that compromise would look like. ... It is a deeply contentious issue so it would certainly not be easy to have something like that happen."_
> 
> Interesting that even the director of this group gets it...Return to the constitution. Do it the right way.
> 
> I'm less confident this morning that President Biden meant what he said than I was yesterday.


He literally hasn't done anything yet lol. Seems like you had your mind made up beforehand. Reviewing the boundaries after they had been trimmed is a good thing. Especially Grand Staircase after 20 years. I support passing it through congress which can be relatively easily done. Why in Utah is it "local control" until that local control doesn't agree with the conservative legislature and the Native American voice in the area is no longer gerrymandered into submission?


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> He literally hasn't done anything yet lol. Seems like you had your mind made up beforehand.


He literally has done something, though. He's ordered a review on his first day in office before his Interior Secretary is even confirmed. That is literally not nothing.

And I haven't made my mind up about anything. Quit being such a drama queen. You like to assume way too much.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> He literally has done something, though. He's ordered a review on his first day in office before his Interior Secretary is even confirmed. That is literally not nothing.
> 
> And I haven't made my mind up about anything. Quit being such a drama queen. You like to assume way too much.


Ordering a review is a review and nothing more, the anti-conservation approaches taken by the Trump Administration should be reviewed, every single one of them. It is YOU being the drama queen.


----------



## Vanilla

Literally, clearly.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Ordering a review is a review and nothing more, the anti-conservation approaches taken by the Trump Administration should be reviewed, every single one of them. It is YOU being the drama queen.


Biden has ordered a review of all of Trump's BS:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local...executive-order-on-bears-ears-grand-staircase

Utah's congressional delegation unanimously opposes the order, which is why I'm skeptical about Congress solving the problem. Selfishness and greed are human instincts which don't change much over time. There will always be exploiters and preservationists. The looting of antiquities in Chaco Canyon prompted passage of the antiquities Act, or should I say the inability of Congress to act to prevent the looting in a timely fashion did. The multi-year experience surrounding BE once again proved the value of the Act.

My own review of the reductions Trump attempted would be fairly short. His actions have no basis in the language of the Act or case law and are thus invalid, so the original boundaries would be restored ASAP. Period.


----------



## Bax*

Please simmer down fellas.

If 2020 has taught me anything, its that people are very passionate about certain topics and have had considerable time to sit home and ponder the topics which in some senses seems to have caused the political blinders to be put on and few are really willing to evaluate the position of both sides of the argument to see if common ground can be met.

Truth be told, I have been a critic of monument designation for years and years. But after watching our state fumble the reduction and mortgage our resources to people who dont have our land's interests at heart (cough cough Chris Stewart), I realized that my position was on shaky ground.

PBH and I had our disagreements on monument designation, but in the end. I now agree with much of what he has said. I almost feel like he had a crystal ball into what our state was going to do because his forecast was amazingly accurate.

I think we can all agree that we want whats best for the land in question. So rather than putting our blinders on, have a constructive conversation. You never know, your opinion might change if you are determined to listen to one another


----------



## CPAjeff

1-I - - - when was the last time you posted something not relating to politics, or how all white males should be ashamed to be white males?

Seriously dude, do you even hunt or fish?


----------



## paddler

CPAjeff said:


> 1-I - - - when was the last time you posted something not relating to politics, or how all white males should be ashamed to be white males?
> 
> Seriously dude, do you even hunt or fish?


Now, there's some UNITY for you!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

CPAjeff said:


> 1-I - - - when was the last time you posted something not relating to politics, or how all white males should be ashamed to be white males?
> 
> Seriously dude, do you even hunt or fish?


I sent you a DM. I'll listen to Bax.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Bax* said:


> Please simmer down fellas.
> 
> If 2020 has taught me anything, its that people are very passionate about certain topics and have had considerable time to sit home and ponder the topics which in some senses seems to have caused the political blinders to be put on and few are really willing to evaluate the position of both sides of the argument to see if common ground can be met.
> 
> Truth be told, I have been a critic of monument designation for years and years. But after watching our state fumble the reduction and mortgage our resources to people who dont have our land's interests at heart (cough cough Chris Stewart), I realized that my position was on shaky ground.
> 
> PBH and I had our disagreements on monument designation, but in the end. I now agree with much of what he has said. I almost feel like he had a crystal ball into what our state was going to do because his forecast was amazingly accurate.
> 
> I think we can all agree that we want whats best for the land in question. So rather than putting our blinders on, have a constructive conversation. You never know, your opinion might change if you are determined to listen to one another


It has been crystal clear for quite a long time Utah's legislature, and representatives are no friend to public lands or conservation. I will never, not one day, not with an ounce of hope trust Mike Lee or Chris Stewart to do the right thing for public lands, wildlife, wild places, and wild things. I don't expect Owens, Moore, or Romney to be much better, although Moore is likely a step up from the worst of the worst (Bishop).


----------



## CPAjeff

paddler said:


> Now, there's some UNITY for you!


My post was simply a honest question. Speaking of unity - I'm all for it. Unity does not mean oneness in all things, but oneness in purpose. It seems, from your posts, you're only interested in your own paradigm. Destroying others because their view is different is the complete opposite from unity.

This great nation was founded by the blood, sweat, and tears of many different views and cultures coming together - compromising if you will - for the common good. Look through the pages of history, ALL presidents have done positive and negative things during their time. I hope 2021 marks an end to the ridiculousness politics has become.


----------



## paddler

CPAjeff said:


> My post was simply a honest question. Speaking of unity - I'm all for it. Unity does not mean oneness in all things, but oneness in purpose. It seems, from your posts, you're only interested in your own paradigm. Destroying others because their view is different is the complete opposite from unity.
> 
> This great nation was founded by the blood, sweat, and tears of many different views and cultures coming together - compromising if you will - for the common good. Look through the pages of history, ALL presidents have done positive and negative things during their time. I hope 2021 marks an end to the ridiculousness politics has become.


I am interested in preservation of our public lands for our children's children's children. I do not support exploitation and degradation of our public lands by corporations or private individuals for profit. As Roosevelt said:

*Defenders of the shortsighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful and wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying that "the game goes to the people." So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The "greatest good for the greatest number" applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method. *

That is my paradigm, my guiding principle.


----------



## Springville Shooter

This quote by Gifford Pinchot captures my paradigm. -----SS

_"Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men.
Unless we practice conservation, those who come after us will have to pay the price of misery, degradation, and failure for the progress and prosperity of our day.
The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if we make ourselves responsible for that future."_


----------



## CPAjeff

paddler said:


> I am interested in preservation of our public lands for our children's children's children. I do not support exploitation and degradation of our public lands by corporations or private individuals for profit. As Roosevelt said:
> 
> *Defenders of the shortsighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful and wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying that "the game goes to the people." So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The "greatest good for the greatest number" applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method. *
> 
> That is my paradigm, my guiding principle.


Paddler - honestly that's a great paradigm.

A couple questions, and please correct me at any point where I'm wrong ... you're against oil drilling, correct? If that is correct, what's your view on the millions of folks in the US whose lives depend on oilfield work? Should they just find a different job?

If I remember correctly, you're some type of medical professional ... have you ever practiced or seen the ramifications of socialized healthcare? If the government controlled all healthcare, would that make you more or less valuable?

I LOVE hunting and the public lands we all enjoy - however, my hobby and passion for my hobby doesn't come before the ability a father or mother have to provide the necessities of life for their children.


----------



## brisket

Brettski7 said:


> And I'm not scared.


With the current war on the 1st amendment and the coming attack on the 2nd, you should be scared.

Better hide your AR-14s, Big Brother is coming for them.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/


----------



## paddler

CPAjeff said:


> Paddler - honestly that's a great paradigm.
> 
> A couple questions, and please correct me at any point where I'm wrong ... you're against oil drilling, correct? If that is correct, what's your view on the millions of folks in the US whose lives depend on oilfield work? Should they just find a different job?
> 
> If I remember correctly, you're some type of medical professional ... have you ever practiced or seen the ramifications of socialized healthcare? If the government controlled all healthcare, would that make you more or less valuable?
> 
> I LOVE hunting and the public lands we all enjoy - however, my hobby and passion for my hobby doesn't come before the ability a father or mother have to provide the necessities of life for their children.


No, I'm not against drilling for oil, and am on record to that effect. I drive a Ford Expedition Max, it doesn't run on fairy dust. However, I do what I can to get the best mileage possible, including driving on the freeway with the cruise control set at 63MPH. I average more than 20MPG, which is very good for a 6000# vehicle. I support responsibly drilling for oil, ie, not in the ANWR. Oil extraction must be done in the most responsible way possible. I anticipate transitioning away from oil to renewables, in which case new jobs will be created. Retraining people for those jobs should be made available.

I am a physician with 38 years experience. I try to always be a good steward of our healthcare dollars. When I hired on at my current job, the company's guiding vision was to provide the highest quality care at the lowest appropriate cost. That is my guiding principle at work. As for the future of healthcare in the US, I hope to see a reduction in waste, ie, unnecessary testing, treatments, etc. The last estimate I've seen is that we waste 30% of our healthcare dollars. Most unfortunate. I think the way forward is to offer a public option, like Medicare, and let the market decide. Don't mandate anything, people can keep their current insurance if they so desire. But if the public option is less expensive, some will choose that. Some will choose concierge care, no worries.

Personally, I'm not worried about my future. It's been a great career. My value, besides caring for patients, is to act as a resource for our younger providers, to share my experience, skills and philosophy regarding the practice of medicine. I answer lots of questions, and try to emphasize the importance of cost-effective, evidence-based medicine. To paraphrase, medicine has been very good to me.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Better hide your AR-14s, Big Brother is coming for them.



:shock:


----------



## CPAjeff

paddler said:


> No, I'm not against drilling for oil, and am on record to that effect. I drive a Ford Expedition Max, it doesn't run on fairy dust. However, I do what I can to get the best mileage possible, including driving on the freeway with the cruise control set at 63MPH. I average more than 20MPG, which is very good for a 6000# vehicle. I support responsibly drilling for oil, ie, not in the ANWR. Oil extraction must be done in the most responsible way possible. I anticipate transitioning away from oil to renewables, in which case new jobs will be created. Retraining people for those jobs should be made available.Please elaborate on oil extraction must be done in the most responsible way possible. More than half of each barrel of oil is used for something other than gas or fuel. Sure, we've come a long way in the renewable sector, but windmills, solar panels, and EV's aren't made of fairy dust.
> 
> I am a physician with 38 years experience. I try to always be a good steward of our healthcare dollars. When I hired on at my current job, the company's guiding vision was to provide the highest quality care at the lowest appropriate cost. That is my guiding principle at work. As for the future of healthcare in the US, I hope to see a reduction in waste, ie, unnecessary testing, treatments, etc. The last estimate I've seen is that we waste 30% of our healthcare dollars. Most unfortunate. I think the way forward is to offer a public option, like Medicare, and let the market decide. Don't mandate anything, people can keep their current insurance if they so desire. But if the public option is less expensive, some will choose that. Some will choose concierge care, no worries. Lowest appropriate cost - to who? Who dictates what the lowest appropriate cost is? Medical professionals make crazy good money, and they should, but what about when Big Brother starts dictating, even more than is already dictated, what can be charged for a certain service? Would you still tell younger folks, who come to you for advice, to continue in the medical profession if they made 50% or 60% of what you make? Sure, it's not always about money. But, competition drives innovation and market stabilization. Handouts create apathy and kill innovation.
> 
> Personally, I'm not worried about my future. It's been a great career. My value, besides caring for patients, is to act as a resource for our younger providers, to share my experience, skills and philosophy regarding the practice of medicine. I answer lots of questions, and try to emphasize the importance of cost-effective, evidence-based medicine. To paraphrase, medicine has been very good to me.
> If you've been in medicine for 38 years, I'm sure your not worried about your future. But it's not your future that hangs in the balance - is all future generations. When Big Brother wants to limit, nearly everything, in the name of democracy, government has overstepped its boundaries.


See my comments in red.

President Biden has some pretty interesting views of guns and ammo (i.e. prohibiting online gun and ammo sales, no more than one gun purchase a month per individual). It'll be pretty hard for those who don't hoard ammo to enjoy the outdoors if the current market conditions on ammo continues, enhanced by pending sales bans. It seems - and I'm hope I'm completely wrong - that the government thinks it needs to be the great puppeteer in every facet.


----------



## paddler

Don't want to get too far off topic, so I will speak generally. I believe in science and facts, and that they should guide our decision making. Biden is already a vast improvement over the previous administration in that regard.

I cannot help you with drilling for oil as I'm not an expert in the field. I trust there are methods that reduce the footprint of drilling to the minimum necessary, I trust that the environment impacts of fracking can be held to an absolute minimum, that transparency is important regarding the substances injected for fracking, that areas vary in the environmental impacts caused by drilling, etc. All those decisions, including habitat restoration, should be guided by science. We have seen a war an the environment waged by the previous administration, all those actions must be reversed. The drilling discussion prompts a question. Why do Republicans want to drill in the ANWR? I just don't get the whole "Drill, Baby, Drill" thing. Certainly there are deposits where drilling has less environmental impact.

On to medical care, where I am more qualified to speak. In case you don't know, CMS (Medicare) already sets the prices for services. They publish the guide, which includes regional cost adjustments, for every service provided. Insurance companies use that guide to calculate their allowable charges. By lowest appropriate cost, I mean that for many diagnoses we have evidence-based guidelines for treatments that yield the best possible outcomes for patients in the most cost-efficient way. These are not always followed, which contributes to the estimated 30% waste of our healthcare dollars. When you ask who bears the cost, we all do. Whether in the form of direct out-of-pocket payments, or increased premiums, or higher deductibles, we are all now paying more than we should be. Those costs are passed along in higher costs of manufacturing and make our products less competitive on the world stage. It's a long discussion, but hopefully you get the gist. 

As far as the impact on providers, their guiding principle should be to, once again, provide high quality care. First, do no harm. Unnecessary cost should be seen as a bad outcome, ie, doing harm to those under our care and the community at large. Compensation is complicated discussion. I sleep well at night because I put my patients' interests first.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

CPAjeff said:


> Paddler - honestly that's a great paradigm.
> 
> A couple questions, and please correct me at any point where I'm wrong ... you're against oil drilling, correct? If that is correct, what's your view on the millions of folks in the US whose lives depend on oilfield work? Should they just find a different job?
> 
> If I remember correctly, you're some type of medical professional ... have you ever practiced or seen the ramifications of socialized healthcare? If the government controlled all healthcare, would that make you more or less valuable?
> 
> I LOVE hunting and the public lands we all enjoy - however, my hobby and passion for my hobby doesn't come before the ability a father or mother have to provide the necessities of life for their children.


Let's take coal for an example. The area I live relies heavily on a coal mine for its economy. Over the years I've watched county leaders turn down means progress and diversification of the local economy in fear of "growth" or "change" and use tax money to spend on frivolous things like coal ports or lawsuits to maintain something that is going to long term be unsustainable. If you fight to stay stuck in the past you'll be left there. Community leaders and an unwillingness to adapt and diversify the economy is why places like the ones I live will struggle so hard with some policies. Fighting progress in the name of wanting things to simply stay the same is as dumb as it comes. I am not against wise use of resources, but the past 4 years have hardly been that. The Trump Administration streamlined, proposed, and fought for horrible policies and anti-conservation agendas. I'll leave the other stuff alone to stay on conservation topic.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

brisket said:


> With the current war on the 1st amendment and the coming attack on the 2nd, you should be scared.
> 
> Better hide your AR-14s, Big Brother is coming for them.
> 
> https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/


Yeah....Obama was too when he had the Senate, House, and Presidency huh? How much gun legislation did he introduce in those 2 years you ask? The answer? None. The gun thing is what easily swayed people buy in to hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

A very simple rule that the Biden Administration will likely fix is the waste off flaring of natural gas we see in regards to drilling. It’s wasteful, and terrible for greenhouse gas emissions. Things like that are what Republicans will streamline and just not care about that the new Asminstration will assuredly crack down on. And good.


PS.....we aren’t energy reliant on other countries until our own resources are depleted. The “drill baby drill” mantra is stupid. So your argument to not be energy dependent on other countries is to use our resources in our own country up as quickly as possible? And then flare off massive amounts of natural gas and waste it? I’d rather we wisely use our resources and not destroy our natural ones in the name of “drill baby drill”.


----------



## Vanilla

Dunning-Kruger Effect


----------



## CPAjeff

paddler said:


> Don't want to get too far off topic, so I will speak generally. I believe in science and facts, and that they should guide our decision making. Biden is already a vast improvement over the previous administration in that regard.
> 
> I cannot help you with drilling for oil as I'm not an expert in the field. I trust there are methods that reduce the footprint of drilling to the minimum necessary, I trust that the environment impacts of fracking can be held to an absolute minimum, that transparency is important regarding the substances injected for fracking, that areas vary in the environmental impacts caused by drilling, etc. All those decisions, including habitat restoration, should be guided by science. We have seen a war an the environment waged by the previous administration, all those actions must be reversed. The drilling discussion prompts a question. Why do Republicans want to drill in the ANWR? I just don't get the whole "Drill, Baby, Drill" thing. Certainly there are deposits where drilling has less environmental impact.
> 
> On to medical care, where I am more qualified to speak. In case you don't know, CMS (Medicare) already sets the prices for services. They publish the guide, which includes regional cost adjustments, for every service provided. Insurance companies use that guide to calculate their allowable charges. By lowest appropriate cost, I mean that for many diagnoses we have evidence-based guidelines for treatments that yield the best possible outcomes for patients in the most cost-efficient way. These are not always followed, which contributes to the estimated 30% waste of our healthcare dollars. When you ask who bears the cost, we all do. Whether in the form of direct out-of-pocket payments, or increased premiums, or higher deductibles, we are all now paying more than we should be. Those costs are passed along in higher costs of manufacturing and make our products less competitive on the world stage. It's a long discussion, but hopefully you get the gist.
> 
> As far as the impact on providers, their guiding principle should be to, once again, provide high quality care. First, do no harm. Unnecessary cost should be seen as a bad outcome, ie, doing harm to those under our care and the community at large. Compensation is complicated discussion. I sleep well at night because I put my patients' interests first.


Thanks for the info - I've spent a signification amount of time auditing and consulting healthcare companies (hospitals, private clinics, etc.), so I'm not new to how things work. C'mon now Paddler, compensation is not a complicated discussion - when the government steps in and tries to make things universal, compensation decreases. We both know that. For every one Mother Teresa, there are thousands of folks willing to make the sacrifices to become a doctor so they can cash the check.

While I don't associate myself with your same political party, not everyone who voted different than you wants to see drilling done on the AWNR ... nor do I think we need to drill, baby drill. The transition from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable sources is inevitable - one I'm more than supportive of (so is my investment portfolio). But mandating an immediate ban on new oil leases doesn't seem like the logical decision. It seems more like putting the cart before the horse. Do we have reliable renewable sources? Maybe. Attend a wind power conference and listen to some presentations. I have and the economics of wind power don't make sense. Is Tesla, or similar, the car of the future? I'm hedged pretty well on that bet.

Just so we're clear - Trump wasn't my Savior, nor is Biden. Jumping on the Trump train or the Biden bandwagon, with ignorance that either is perfect and without jacked up ideas, is simply moronic.


----------



## Brettski7

CPAjeff said:


> My post was simply a honest question. Speaking of unity - I'm all for it. Unity does not mean oneness in all things, but oneness in purpose. It seems, from your posts, you're only interested in your own paradigm. Destroying others because their view is different is the complete opposite from unity.
> 
> This great nation was founded by the blood, sweat, and tears of many different views and cultures coming together - compromising if you will - for the common good. Look through the pages of history, ALL presidents have done positive and negative things during their time. I hope 2021 marks an end to the ridiculousness politics has become.


Nailed it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brettski7

brisket said:


> With the current war on the 1st amendment and the coming attack on the 2nd, you should be scared.
> 
> Better hide your AR-14s, Big Brother is coming for them.
> 
> https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/


I've seen that. What ARs do you speak of? Lol. It's a radicle and ignorant plan that will accomplish nothing. I'm not scared because I have what I need already.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Dunning-Kruger Effect


V, this thread is about Biden and Bears Ears. If you want to talk about Trump, start your own thread. Dude is way too stupid to know how stupid he is.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Dude is way too stupid to know how stupid he is.


Seems to be going around! Too many experts on things they have no clue what they're talking about, but think they're competent. 2020 played this out in living color for us.


----------



## paddler

CPAjeff said:


> Thanks for the info - I've spent a signification amount of time auditing and consulting healthcare companies (hospitals, private clinics, etc.), so I'm not new to how things work. C'mon now Paddler, compensation is not a complicated discussion - when the government steps in and tries to make things universal, compensation decreases. We both know that. For every one Mother Teresa, there are thousands of folks willing to make the sacrifices to become a doctor so they can cash the check.
> 
> While I don't associate myself with your same political party, not everyone who voted different than you wants to see drilling done on the AWNR ... nor do I think we need to drill, baby drill. The transition from reliance on fossil fuels to renewable sources is inevitable - one I'm more than supportive of (so is my investment portfolio). But mandating an immediate ban on new oil leases doesn't seem like the logical decision. It seems more like putting the cart before the horse. Do we have reliable renewable sources? Maybe. Attend a wind power conference and listen to some presentations. I have and the economics of wind power don't make sense. Is Tesla, or similar, the car of the future? I'm hedged pretty well on that bet.
> 
> Just so we're clear - Trump wasn't my Savior, nor is Biden. Jumping on the Trump train or the Biden bandwagon, with ignorance that either is perfect and without jacked up ideas, is simply moronic.


Compensation is pretty complicated in my mind. For instance, doing discretionary tests and treatments, which by definition increases costs without improving outcomes, increases revenue for providers and healthcare entities but has the potential to harm patients. But harming patients can also increase revenue because the complications that arise require further treatment. Believe it or not, there are physicians who will violate evidence-based guidelines in order to meet patients' expectations, and in so doing harm them. But the providers make more money by doing so, and since patients are unable to accurately gauge the quality of care, patients are happy. It happens every day. It seems some providers put the profit motive over the service motive.

Now, more care costs more, but providers then have more money to spend, so the economy can benefit. Healthcare is a service industry, but those who work in it are consumers, so that's good for Starbucks, Whole Foods, REI and all those yuppy companies.

The oil leases issue is more complicated than that, too. Biden is banning new oil leases only on federal land, and there are many leases sold quite some time ago that have not been and will not be developed. My understanding is that there is quite a backlog, so the ban will have no real impact for quite some time. It's not like he has ordered an immediate cessation of drilling for oil on operating leases or developing leases already sold.

Just a point on the ANWR. Only Republicans have pushed for drilling there. Jimmy Carter signed the bill that created it in 1980:

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

For reasons I do not understand, opening it to drilling seems to be the Holy Grail for some Republicans, as if despoiling the area would be a yuge accomplishment, a feather in their cap. More generally, drilling everywhere is a fundamental plank in the Republican Party platform, only those who live under rocks are ignorant of that fact. So if you vote for Republicans, you are indeed supporting drilling everywhere, including the ANWR, environmental consequences be damned.


----------



## brisket

Brettski7 said:


> What ARs do you speak of?


I dunno, ask Joe. He's apparently very knowledgeable with the AR-14 platform. See 58 seconds in:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

brisket said:


> I dunno, ask Joe. He's apparently very knowledgeable with the AR-14 platform. See 58 seconds in:


Biden having a lack of knowledge of guns does not mean he or most Democrats have any intention of banning them. It's a political tool and football. And it works so obviously and easily, you being a prime example.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Biden having a lack of knowledge of guns does not mean he or most Democrats have any intention of banning them. It's a political tool and football. And it works so obviously and easily, you being a prime example.


Weak minds are easily manipulated. "Gubmint's gonna take yer guns, vote fer me!!"


----------



## Brettski7

brisket said:


> I dunno, ask Joe. He's apparently very knowledgeable with the AR-14 platform. See 58 seconds in:


I was being funny as in what ARs of mine are you talking about. Lol.

As for the two clueless posts above. It's clear you haven't seen their gun control plan yes they do have plans to ban and regulate many other things. It's there actual plan on their own site. It's not the other party saying anything.

Yes your weak mind was easily manipulated.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Brettski7 said:


> I was being funny as in what ARs of mine are you talking about. Lol.
> 
> As for the two clueless posts above. It's clear you haven't seen their gun control plan yes they do have plans to ban and regulate many other things. It's there actual plan on their own site. It's not the other party saying anything.
> 
> Yes your weak mind was easily manipulated.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again. All the same garbage with Obama from the exact same gun drama queens. Obama had a "plan" too. He also had the Senate, House, and Presidency for 2 years. Do tell me, with all the gun drama queens conspiracy thought tanks during his Presidency, how much gun legislation did he ever introduce when he could have easily passed it? Oh that's right none. It's an easy political tool that yes, politicians put in their "plans" to use as a huge and obviously effective "vote for me" tool. If you truly truly believe major gun legislation is going to be passed....well you're delusional.


----------



## backcountry

I can say I'm not psyched on much of his firearms platform. Don't know as much about his assault weapons policies but his goal to end online sale of ammunition sucks. From a very practical standpoint, online sales is often the only place for me to get good non-lead shells for my over under. Just not much availability locally.

It's one of the reasons I think the democrats need to interact with hunters more. There are some silly policy goals. Heller v made it clear it's not about hunting, but the limitations placed on 2A definitely affect us. I'd rather have good faith compromise that takes years than these extreme oscillations every 4-8 years. The only people that seem to benefit from this trend in the short run are special interest groups and manufacturers raking on the dollars from all the fear mongering. 

In a roundabout way it's the same for land management. The yo-yo antagonism between zealots on "both sides" has often negatively affected those in the middle who would rather just have a slower process but one that fosters sustainable designations and policy. 

I'll see what happens in the next 4 years and vote accordingly.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> I can say I'm not psyched on much of his firearms platform. Don't know as much about his assault weapons policies but his goal to end online sale of ammunition sucks. From a very practical standpoint, online sales is often the only place for me to get good non-lead shells for my over under. Just not much availability locally.
> 
> It's one of the reasons I think the democrats need to interact with hunters more. There are some silly policy goals. Heller v made it clear it's not about hunting, but the limitations placed on 2A definitely affect us. I'd rather have good faith compromise that takes years than these extreme oscillations every 4-8 years. The only people that seem to benefit from this trend in the short run are special interest groups and manufacturers raking on the dollars from all the fear mongering.
> 
> In a roundabout way it's the same for land management. The yo-yo antagonism between zealots on "both sides" has often negatively affected those in the middle who would rather just have a slower process but one that fosters sustainable designations and policy.
> 
> I'll see what happens in the next 4 years and vote accordingly.


I agree with this. There's just never been any substantive action really on firearms because truth be told, even many Dems don't want to pass that sort of stuff. And yes a lot of Dems could certainly spend more time understanding outdoorsmen, and conservatives could spend more time trying to understand where some of those voting the other way are coming from. As far as guns there's really been no extreme difference every 4-8 years. On land management and things it's a yo-yo effect, but guns, not really there just hasn't been much done from withers perspective. And I'll be up front, I am against banning sell of ammo online, but I would support a more detailed process to purchase a semi-automatic weapon. All of these things have nuance. Land policy will change significantly, as will things like EPA policy and stuff. I don't expect much, if any movement on guns. Sure it's in every politicians platforms. Guns are in no real danger. I promise you all Tester in Montana isn't voting to ban guns, neither is the dude from New Mexico, nor would Ben McAdams have here had he gotten a 2nd term. Everyone looks at the extremes and thinks "that's what's going to happen". It's not.


----------



## Brettski7

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Again. All the same garbage with Obama from the exact same gun drama queens. Obama had a "plan" too. He also had the Senate, House, and Presidency for 2 years. Do tell me, with all the gun drama queens conspiracy thought tanks during his Presidency, how much gun legislation did he ever introduce when he could have easily passed it? Oh that's right none. It's an easy political tool that yes, politicians put in their "plans" to use as a huge and obviously effective "vote for me" tool. If you truly truly believe major gun legislation is going to be passed....well you're delusional.


Didn't say I believed it was going to but it is the agenda and has a possibility. It has been done before. Just because Obama didn't, doesn't mean it can't. To believe there is no chance of it happening is ignorant at best.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

I don't support banning the online sale of ammo, for the very reason backcountry stated. Not sure if one could make the purchase by phone, though. Also, I don't support the ban on assault weapons. I came up with an idea many years ago which is a better option. Just move all semiautomatic weapons that use centerfire ammunition and accept detachable magazines to Class 3, subject to the same stringent criteria for purchase, ownership and sale. Nothing would be banned, those who feel they must own an AR or similar could do so so long as they can pass a thorough background check and are willing to pay the $200 fee. The program would be self supporting and would apply to all such weapons currently in circulation. Easy, peasy.

I wonder how much money the NRA has raised on the "Slippery Slope" argument. Lil Wayne needs him more designer threads.


----------



## CPAjeff

paddler said:


> For reasons I do not understand, opening it to drilling seems to be the Holy Grail for some Republicans, as if despoiling the area would be a yuge accomplishment, a feather in their cap. More generally, drilling everywhere is a fundamental plank in the Republican Party platform, only those who live under rocks are ignorant of that fact. So if you vote for Republicans, you are indeed supporting drilling everywhere, including the ANWR, environmental consequences be damned.


I vote based on which party best lines up overall, not on every single line item, with my views.

It's ironic that you posted about your disagreement with banning online ammo sales ... For reason I do not understand, limiting/banning firearm and ammo sales seem to be the Holy Grail for some Democrats, as if limiting the rights of the people would be a huge accomplishment, a feather in the cap. More generally, government overreach is a fundamental plank in the Democratic Party platform, only those who live under rocks are ignorant to that fact. So if you vote for Democrats, you are indeed supporting government overreach everywhere, including in your own home, consequences be damned. &#128521;

Paddler, thanks for the information you've provided in this thread about a couple topics. We'll never agree about everything, but that's what makes this country a wonderful place to live! Take care!


----------



## Critter

As far as guns are concerned I doubt that they will pass any laws and come knocking at your door to take them away, except for perhaps the so called "black rifle or assault rifle" The definitions that they come up with for a "assault rifle" covers just about any rifle out there. 

However they will pass laws that restrict the magazine capacity, what type of ammo, the color of your rifle, how many rounds that you can have at home, and other restriction to the point that your rifle will quickly become a door stop. 

Don't believe me, take a look at California, New York, New Jersey and a few other states. All ran by Democrats for a very long time now and there are more and more restriction being passed into law every year.


----------



## paddler

CPAjeff said:


> I vote based on which party best lines up overall, not on every single line item, with my views.
> 
> It's ironic that you posted about your disagreement with banning online ammo sales ... For reason I do not understand, limiting/banning firearm and ammo sales seem to be the Holy Grail for some Democrats, as if limiting the rights of the people would be a huge accomplishment, a feather in the cap. More generally, government overreach is a fundamental plank in the Democratic Party platform, only those who live under rocks are ignorant to that fact. So if you vote for Democrats, you are indeed supporting government overreach everywhere, including in your own home, consequences be damned. ��
> 
> Paddler, thanks for the information you've provided in this thread about a couple topics. We'll never agree about everything, but that's what makes this country a wonderful place to live! Take care!


Agreed, I'm not a single issue voter, either. And frankly, I don't think a lot of Democrats, or most legislators, or even most people, have a good working knowledge about guns. Black, plastic guns are seen as menacing. Most people don't understand that semiautomatic weapons are every bit as lethal in mass shootings, probably even more so, than fully automatic weapons. So why are the former available OTC while the latter are Class 3? And, I'm against bans, buybacks, etc, though a buyback program, being voluntary, isn't objectionable.

Reclassification, as I noted above, would be the least restrictive way to reduce mass shootings. Nothing is banned, a prospective buyer just needs to show that he/she most likely won't kill a bunch of school kids. Banning "high capacity" magazines seems silly to me, for obvious reasons. If a guy wants to go through an FBI background check, can get a letter from his local LEO, is willing pay a couple of hundred bucks, I say go for it.

I understand fully that most people aren't single issue voters, but many are. It occurs to me that Republicans are better than Democrats at using social issues to get voters to vote against their own best interests. On this forum, I'm guessing that their are many 2A guys who are motivated by fear of gun control, and are willing to look beyond the very real threats to our environment that the Republican agenda poses. My assessment, as noted by 1-I, is the gun control issue is much overblown. I remember the panic buying that seems cyclical, my gun collection increased significantly during the Obama years. And so it goes.


----------



## Bax*

Soooo the last several posts have not been about BE or GSENM.... please keep on topic


----------



## Jedidiah

I've moved on to talking about political issues in places where actual discussion happens and goals can be made toward real progress. You guys should do the same, instead of indulging your need for expression by trading insults and dogwhistles. One of the best benefits is that you let go of the baggage in your world view.


----------



## paddler

*SL Trib*

There's a very good article on the front page of the Trib this morning on BE and GS. Sally Jewell is quoted as saying Bishop spiked the PLI after years of collaborative work, which is why Obama used the Act to designate BE. It looks like Curtis has been acting in good faith, so we'll see. Very well worth the read.

The photo on the front page is of Comb Ridge, which ranges north all the way up to Bears Ears. It's a striking geologic feature. I took these photos last August while on a motorcycle trip to the area:


----------



## paddler

Patrice Arent, now retired long time legislator from my district, has an op-ed in today's Trib about our monuments. She makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Vanilla

Now they’re talking about putting in a visitor center due to all the increased traffic to the area. And here I thought the NM designation was SUPPOSED to protect the area?


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Now they're talking about putting in a visitor center due to all the increased traffic to the area. And here I thought the NM designation was SUPPOSED to protect the area?


TBH, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

https://kutv.com/news/local/reps-ly...bears-ears-visitors-center-advisory-committee

The genie is already out of the bottle with increased visitation and a visitors center would help with management, regardless of ones opinion on the subject. 
Oddly enough, it is a bipartisan proposal too.


----------



## Bax*

Vanilla said:


> Now they're talking about putting in a visitor center due to all the increased traffic to the area. And here I thought the NM designation was SUPPOSED to protect the area?


Vanilla, this has been my biggest gripe about monument designation. Suddenly the obscure is on the map.

The BLM did a survey about what the #1 motive for visiting GSENM and do you know what it was? SOLITUDE.

Sadly over time more and more people will visit these places as news and pictures spread and before you know it, a toll booth will be at the entrance.


----------



## PBH

Bax* said:


> Sadly over time more and more people will visit these places as news and pictures spread and before you know it, a toll booth will be at the entrance.


I'll take that toll booth, and increased visitation, over a locked gate with a fence to keep people away from an oil pump. Call me crazy.


----------



## High Desert Elk

A simple moratorium without a sunset clause is sufficient to keep extraction out. Sites of cultural signifincance were already protected.

Unless you're from the area, you will not understand the underlying politics of it...


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> The genie is already out of the bottle with increased visitation and a visitors center would help with management, regardless of ones opinion on the subject.
> Oddly enough, it is a bipartisan proposal too.


I'm aware of all that, agree with it, and yet my point still remains. There has been lots of discussion by others about "legacy." Well, the legacy of this will one day be looked at that a true treasure was ruined by a national monument.

PBH, I agree with you 100% on your comment as well, except it is a bit of a false dichotomy created to make your point. But in that false dichotomy, I prefer your answer as well.


----------



## PBH

High Desert Elk said:


> Unless you're from the area, you will not understand the underlying politics of it...


So explain it to us. I'd like to understand. I'd also like to know what "from the area" includes / excludes. I like to include myself - but you might not. I would like to know what I'm not understanding.


----------



## Daisy

Vanilla said:


> I'm aware of all that, agree with it, and yet my point still remains. There has been lots of discussion by others about "legacy." Well, the legacy of this will one day be looked at that a true treasure was ruined by a national monument.


Tell that to the first time visitor from Iowa that is awestruck by the Monument when they visit 5 years from now. Their frame of reference will be different than that a long time local, but no less relevant. "Ruined" is a value judgement, to which you are personally entitled to.


----------



## Vanilla

Daisy said:


> Tell that to the first time visitor from Iowa that is awestruck by the Monument when they visit 5 years from now. Their frame of reference will be different than that a long time local, but no less relevant. "Ruined" is a value judgement, to which you are personally entitled to.


I'm not talking about 5 years from now, but more like 20, 30, or 50 years from now. And I'm not talking about someone driving in and looking at the landscape and being awestruck, but more things like this: https://www.ksl.com/article/50077407/trash-human-waste-and-graffiti-found-in-the-narrows

Yes, this fits the definition of "ruined" for me. A wild place with graffiti, garbage and literally crap everywhere is not wild at all.

*Edit: This is also NOT my definition of protection. All the antiquities that very few (relatively speaking) knew existed before are now very much in peril.


----------



## Critter

The problem is that once people discover it they will ruin it unless there is a overlord standing over them to prevent it. Even if there are pit toilets you will have people trashing them. I was camped at Devils Canyon campground just north of Blanding and when I came back in from hunting I headed over to the toilet, it had been trashed by someone who had stopped by. It was bad enough that I went to one of the other ones in the campground for the length of my stay. 

A few years ago I picked up a 30 gallon garbage bag full of trash just outside of the original Bears Ears, and that was from some hunters who were hunting the area. The only consolation about it was that one of them lost a knife while packing up and I now have it. It isn't a very good knife but it works.


----------



## DallanC

At least they used the bathroom. I was at a spot once where the group of non-american speaking people went over to the bushes behind us to crap... when there was a vault toilet less than 100 yards in the other direction.

/boggle

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla

I'd have preferred the area not receiving designation and the attention that follows. But that area has been on the radar for antiquities theft for decades. There is a very real market for it and that area has suffered the consequences. 

Graffiti and heavy use will undoubtedly impact the area but it's tough to compare to the loss of the very history and items that defined the area in the first place.

The situation is tougher now. I'll treasure the many solo memories I had there in the aughts and keep my hand annotated maps for the family.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> A simple moratorium without a sunset clause is sufficient to keep extraction out. Sites of cultural signifincance were already protected.
> 
> Unless you're from the area, you will not understand the underlying politics of it...


That's simply untrue. Nobody holds the singular or proper lense that defines the politics of the place. That's a pretty consistent truth with most public lands.

There are a multitude of perspectives that are all valid. Hence the conflict. Paradox is tough to avoid in land management.


----------



## Daisy

Vanilla said:


> I'm not talking about 5 years from now, but more like 20, 30, or 50 years from now. And I'm not talking about someone driving in and looking at the landscape and being awestruck, but more things like this: https://www.ksl.com/article/50077407/trash-human-waste-and-graffiti-found-in-the-narrows


 The context helps. I understand, decades from now.

[/QUOTE]Yes, this fits the definition of "ruined" for me. A wild place with graffiti, garbage and literally crap everywhere is not wild at all.[/QUOTE] I used to have a liberal friend who had a piece of private property on the Weber above Rockport, and I used to fish it. It had huge triploid rainbows, and tetraploid browns that were just toads. Then all of sudden a few years ago it started to see significantly more pressure from anglers (sometimes they did not speak American) that the owner or myself had ever seen before. It became harder and harder to enjoy that little stretch of paradise. On top of the pressure, there was literally crap everywhere, tippet, PBR and Red Bull cans, Camel Light butts, and Cliff Bar wrappers were common. And don't get me started on the flyfishing lifestyle stickers on the road signs.

*Edit: This is also NOT my definition of protection. All the antiquities that very few (relatively speaking) knew existed before are now very much in peril.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to Brett Toleman and Larry Echohawk. Antiquities have been looted from that region by locals and visitors alike for decades. At least now there may be another added layer to keep these national treasures/antiquities protected from ourselves.


----------



## middlefork

It is too bad that most who demand conservation and protection of areas do so through promotion of said area. Sierra Club 101.


----------



## DallanC

Daisy said:


> Reason: Guess I am not smart enough to use the quote function. Luv you T.


Put the word QUOTE in brackets at the start of the other persons text, place /QUOTE in brackets at the end of the other persons text. The slash "/" means end of the QUOTE segment.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

middlefork said:


> It is too bad that most who demand conservation and protection of areas do so through promotion of said area. Sierra Club 101.


I agree with that. It's an old model that's outdated and has caused lots of problems for a while now.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Monument designations are two-fold to me. I am glad there is increased visitation to the areas because many of these small communities need that economic help especially going forward. And yes there is such thing as loving a place to death, but Grand Staircase has been a monument for 20 years.......I mean if you think it’s being destroyed by visitation you’re up in the night, it’s pristine as it’s ever been and an economic driver for the state and area. National Monuments are a great thing, and the larger they are the more protection they add. Very focused sites are what can be “love to death”. PS.....FUND the agencies that manage these places and they’d be better off, but hey the same people who say “protection is bad” cut their budgets every chance they get.


----------



## High Desert Elk

PBH said:


> So explain it to us. I'd like to understand. I'd also like to know what "from the area" includes / excludes. I like to include myself - but you might not. I would like to know what I'm not understanding.


Doesn't matter. backcountry already made the assumption it wasn't true.

Good luck to everyone in the upcoming draws, whichever state or units you apply for. I wish the members of the Utah Wildlife Network the best.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain it to us. I'd like to understand. I'd also like to know what "from the area" includes / excludes. I like to include myself - but you might not. I would like to know what I'm not understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter. backcountry already made the assumption it wasn't true.
> 
> Good luck to everyone in the upcoming draws, whichever state or units you apply for. I wish the members of the Utah Wildlife Network the best.
Click to expand...

PBH seems to genuinely care, no reason to penalize him because I called out the claim that "Unless you're from the area, you will not understand the underlying politics of it".

You have valid experiences and perspectives but all of us have valid understanding of the "underlying politics" that your comment bluntly dismissed. I chose to bluntly call out the classic and flawed myth that we can't "understand the underlying politics of it" that pollutes just about every public lands policy. Locals often think they have the most singular and important stake in the game. They don't, by design. And the notion that "we can't understand" has the unfortunate impact of, at least trying to, minimize the validity of our stake and influence. Luckily we have systems in place to reduce the impact of that dangerous strategy, though they don't always work. No matter, local politics are just one valid component of the larger whole.

But it's all sloppy and tense because American citizens, not just locals, have diverse and conflicting views and stakes in the game. Sometimes locals interests wins out, sometimes they don't. But that area is all of our heritage and the politics that underly this issue are broad and deep. That's not an assumption, it's the self-evident truth.


----------



## paddler

There were quite a few good items in yesterday's Trib about Bear's Ears, etc. I favor protections, of course, but also adequate funding, enforcement, etc. Unfortunately, people can be quite disgusting, as evidenced in the Narrows article. It was attributed to fewer patrols in an area that has seen high levels of use for a very long time. 

Kinda funny that Doug Owens, my Representative, and that criminal, Phil Lyman, are both supporting a new BE visitor's center. That should be funded by federal dollars.


----------



## backcountry

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Monument designations are two-fold to me. I am glad there is increased visitation to the areas because many of these small communities need that economic help especially going forward. And yes there is such thing as loving a place to death, but Grand Staircase has been a monument for 20 years.......I mean if you think it's being destroyed by visitation you're up in the night, it's pristine as it's ever been and an economic driver for the state and area. National Monuments are a great thing, and the larger they are the more protection they add. Very focused sites are what can be "love to death". PS.....FUND the agencies that manage these places and they'd be better off, but hey the same people who say "protection is bad" cut their budgets every chance they get.


GSENM very much has places being loved to death. Not everyone of the sections or highly visited spots by any means but there are many. Calf Creek Falls region is a great example. I use to fly fish there up to a decade ago but the last time I tried it was a zoo and saw ridiculous amounts of poop. Every time I drive by now the parking lot seems to be jammed packed even during what use to be the "off season".

Coyote Gulch has taken a massive beating even though it's been known for decades.

There are still amazing places to visit but I don't agree they are "pristine", especially as much as they were 17 years ago when I discovered the place. And one could justly argue much of the included land was barely "pristine" when they designated it.

Designations tend to hotspot key areas that take immense abuse. I'm largely for monuments but the strategies that get enough people to recognize their worth can have the ironic consequence of eroding many of those values. They can still be found but it can drive people further into the backcountry and expand the impact of the cycle. Doesn't have to be that way but it's the one we seem to prioritize.

And BENM is definitely suffering the consequences of that strategy. We may just disagree on wether the positive outweighs the negative. For BENM I just happen to believe large swaths of backcountry antiquities are the wrong place for such attention.


----------



## PBH

Page 23? blah.

Middlefork -- I'm not a member of Sierra Club. I'm all for designations, and speak it frequently.

Page 24 of this discussion has some really good stuff!
1-Eye even had some valid comments. We hear all the time about the economies in those areas, like Garfield County. They crack me up. We hear a ton about schools shrinking, and it's 100% true. But what you don't hear is about all the growth -- the "move-ins". Those retired people buying property, building houses, and starting new businesses supporting tourism. You only hear about the family ranches, living off subsidies. You hear about sawmills that have been shut down - not because they were forced by the Sierra Club, or the evil government, but rather because the southern Utah mountains just cannot compete with the forests of Oregon for lumber. I mean, who want's to log aspen? Why is it that the Syrett family does so well, and yet other ranching families struggle? Tourism. Capitalize on it.


Backcountry is also correct, along with 1-Eye. Yes, there are places being loved to death. Even some of those not-so-popular places (like Calf Creek). Think about Willis Creek. This is a short, easily accessible slot canyon with a little dirt parking lot suitable for about 5-6 cars. 20 years ago, you could go hike the slot and never see another person. Go check it out this summer -- and you won't find a spot to park within a mile in either direction of the trail head. 

Some of this is certainly due to monument designation. And with that designation brings promotion and increased visitation. And with that increase comes Instagram. And with Instagram comes even more promotion. We all want to blame monument designation -- but today's world revolves around social media and the internet -- which has to take some credit for all of these previously unknow places being discovered and thus promoted. Just go look at your favorite feed and you'll see someone posting pictures of a remote place saying "look at me, I went somewhere you didn't". Then others try to follow.


OK....I'm rambling now. Time to stop. I don't know if I even made a point. Oh well.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry, I guess we’re “up in the night.”

Maybe some people around the country need to go out and actually see things for themselves instead of just playing politics on the internet. Actually, never mind. Don’t go out and see and just stay on the Internet. Forget I ever said that!

PBH, you keep coming back to the Gobert Staircase...but my comments are about Bears Ears. They’re both monuments created by overreach from presidents, but that is where the similarities end for me.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> backcountry, I guess we're "up in the night."
> 
> Maybe some people around the country need to go out and actually see things for themselves instead of just playing politics on the internet. Actually, never mind. Don't go out and see and just stay on the Internet. Forget I ever said that!
> 
> PBH, you keep coming back to the Gobert Staircase...but my comments are about Bears Ears. They're both monuments created by overreach from presidents, but that is where the similarities end for me.


So, explain how a President, using the powers entrusted to him by Congress through the legislative process, setting aside areas rich in historical artifacts to protect them in perpetuity from grave robbers and looters because neither Congress nor any other government entity could act to preserve them, is overreach.

Never mind. I think everybody should follow your directive and forget what you said, and just maybe everything else as well. Worthless drivel.


----------



## Critter

I have no problems with areas being protected, but when one can do so with just a signature on a piece of paper with the lines drawn arbitrarily that's when I start having a problem. 

There is a part of the actual act that states "that areas of the monuments are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." With that in mind I believe that a lot of them are being drawn to enhance the legacy of those who sign on the dotted line.


----------



## Critter

I don't know if it has been posted before but here is the text of the act:

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


----------



## middlefork

PBH, No need to be a member to understand their philosophy concerning protections. And I don't disagree with many of them.

However I don't agree with their practice of gaining "protection" by "hot spotting" areas. And that is how they and SUWA operate. They purposely drive visitation to gain support for protection thus increasing the human impact to the areas concerned.

And true the internet has not helped shield the areas from overuse. The problem comes from the idea that designation by its self does anything to protect the areas in question. They are no more than someone's pipe dream until proper funding is provided and that isn't happening any time soon. Overuse before protections can actually be put in place.


----------



## backcountry

PBH,

I haven't been able to muster the motivation to go too far down HITL anymore so I can't speak to that change but I assume the visitation impact is significant. I still absolutely love the area but have had to moderate my expectations after a decade of easily finding solitude. I say that as someone who moved to Utah because of my experiences in the Escalante. I'll gladly take our little Remy to places like Willis and hopefully Davis when she's old enough but I know it won't be the same. So it goes.

I ultimately think GSENM was the right choice in that case. I'm not as freaked out by the reduction but neither am I a fan. 

BENM is such a different scenario. I'm definitely sympathetic to the regional/local conflicts and desires. The rate of change is tough and cultural traditions don't always play well with federal policy. I've never been too worried about extraction in the main antiquities areas so much as actual preservation of the sites/items. But it isn't remotely pristine either. It's been slowly and steadily pilfered since it was discovered. Maybe thats inevitable and the goal is just to slow the rate. Some believe designation does that while so believe the spotlight accelerates the impact. Only time will tell. I do happen to think the place is understaffed and prosecutions should be more common. Stealing cradle boards (and illegally selling them) and turkey feather capes should receive severe consequences. I say that and I also happen to believe found objects by the government probably shouldn't be locked up in environmentally controlled cabinets either. I really don't know what the happy medium is.

Like so many here and for so many issues for me now, I'm politically homeless and less confident the tools we use are working well. We still have to make decisions with the best information we have but the "both sides" approach just seems to feed exclusion and antagonism that is hurting us. But maybe an the end of the day there really isn't any other choice/outcome? I still have optimism that's not the case but if 2020 taught me anything it's that we living with uncertainty is a perennial issue in life.


----------



## Vanilla

Critter said:


> I don't know if it has been posted before but here is the text of the act:
> 
> https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm


Oh, it's been posted on this forum multiple times. Some just refuse to read it and/or choose to ignore key words contained therein. But, such is the merry-go-round we live on with politics these days. Round and round we go...

YIPPIE!!!


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Oh, it's been posted on this forum multiple times. Some just refuse to read it and/or choose to ignore key words contained therein. But, such is the merry-go-round we live on with politics these days. Round and round we go...
> 
> YIPPIE!!!


Yes, it has been posted before. As have the precedents set by the courts that give the President great latitude in monument designations. What the law doesn't provide for and the courts have never set a precedent for is the capricious reduction of monuments by a subsequent President. Again, pointed out previously. The Act and case law supports Clinton's and Obama's designations, there are no legal grounds for the reductions by the insurrectionist.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

backcountry said:


> GSENM very much has places being loved to death. Not everyone of the sections or highly visited spots by any means but there are many. Calf Creek Falls region is a great example. I use to fly fish there up to a decade ago but the last time I tried it was a zoo and saw ridiculous amounts of poop. Every time I drive by now the parking lot seems to be jammed packed even during what use to be the "off season".
> 
> Coyote Gulch has taken a massive beating even though it's been known for decades.
> 
> There are still amazing places to visit but I don't agree they are "pristine", especially as much as they were 17 years ago when I discovered the place. And one could justly argue much of the included land was barely "pristine" when they designated it.
> 
> Designations tend to hotspot key areas that take immense abuse. I'm largely for monuments but the strategies that get enough people to recognize their worth can have the ironic consequence of eroding many of those values. They can still be found but it can drive people further into the backcountry and expand the impact of the cycle. Doesn't have to be that way but it's the one we seem to prioritize.
> 
> And BENM is definitely suffering the consequences of that strategy. We may just disagree on wether the positive outweighs the negative. For BENM I just happen to believe large swaths of backcountry antiquities are the wrong place for such attention.


As I said........fund the agencies that manage, patrol, and take care of these places. It's easy to say the car tire is flat, when you stuck a nail in it ensuring the air was let out. It's what many of those in congress do, specifically Republicans. They complain these places are poorly managed, then strip everything these agencies need to manage them. This can be said of public lands in general, people trash them in many places. There are places on BLM and Forest Service land that are horribly trashed, yet I don't want them privatized. I would like to see a heavily law enforcement and management presence. Shooting ranges on the regular on public lands look horrible, in fact almost every shooting range I've ever been to has trash in is a mess on public lands, we need better management enforcement and cleanup of these places. The designation itself is doing nothing but protecting the area. Then it's on us to pressure decent management by pushing our representatives to fund these agencies and let them do their jobs.


----------



## paddler

#1DEER 1-I said:


> As I said........fund the agencies that manage, patrol, and take care of these places. It's easy to say the car tire is flat, when you stuck a nail in it ensuring the air was let out. It's what many of those in congress do, specifically Republicans. They complain these places are poorly managed, then strip everything these agencies need to manage them. This can be said of public lands in general, people trash them in many places. There are places on BLM and Forest Service land that are horribly trashed, yet I don't want them privatized. I would like to see a heavily law enforcement and management presence. Shooting ranges on the regular on public lands look horrible, in fact almost every shooting range I've ever been to has trash in is a mess on public lands, we need better management enforcement and cleanup of these places. The designation itself is doing nothing but protecting the area. Then it's on us to pressure decent management by pushing our representatives to fund these agencies and let them do their jobs.


Dude, we can't afford to pay for both maintenance on our public lands, national parks, etc, and give $1.15 trillion in tax cuts to the rich. What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## middlefork

paddler said:


> Dude, we can't afford to pay for both maintenance on our public lands, national parks, etc, and give $2.9 trillion in stimulus to the the people we put out of work. What the heck are you talking about?


There fixed it for you. You're welcome.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

middlefork said:


> There fixed it for you. You're welcome.


The government is never going to stop spending, and Parks, monuments, etc. are economically stimulating enough we should be investing heavier in them. The government is going to spend spend spend no matter what, I would prefer a reasonable amount goes to conservation/public lands which currently gets like 1-2% of the federal budget now.


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> There fixed it for you. You're welcome.


Wrong again, Bucko, on so many levels. Read much? Didn't think so. Try Krugman, not Fox. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, dumb*ss:

https://www.nytimes.com/column/paul-krugman


----------



## backcountry

I agree about the the issue of underfunding and I've had friends who work in federal agencies leave because of its impacts. It sucks. But it's the reality we live with in as a nation so divided politically and it's not going away anytime soon given our Congress will have these perennial ideological differences. 

Given that we have to analyze the "loving it to death" phenomena under the reality that exists, not an ideal one. Monuments exist in the current context no matter how much we wish otherwise. And I'm not convinced better funded management can truly remediate the issue of significant increases in visitation. At some point we have to consider a sort of recreational/ecological carrying capacity and the impacts of "hotspotting" designations and the boosters that help create them.

I think we can do better. I just don't know how and with a place like BENM I sincerely believe monument status isn't a net positive for the sites and antiquities. Ultimately I believe leaving it as it was, with the existing policy and protections, plus more patrolling could have done better than increasing attention and therefore visitation to such vulnerable resources.


----------



## PBH

Backcountry -- why does Navajo Nation, and the other tribes in the area, want the designation?


----------



## backcountry

I understand they do. And their voice should be valued as a stakeholder. I don't believe it alone should hold primacy but definitely more priority than the past given historical bias against them.

Their emphasis on "protections" sound great on paper but I have yet to see meaningful ways that a monument status provides enough benefit that outweighs the impact to the region. The Antiquities Act (and several other laws) already provided the backbone that a monument would build on. 

The genie is out of the bottle and now the new administration has a short amount of time to create policy that shows the tit-for-tat was worth it. They could prove my hesitation wrong but as of yet I have yet to see anything meaningful or creative enough to truly mitigate the significant increase in pressure the monument campaign brought to the area. A visitor center doesn't cut it. But time will tell.


----------



## middlefork

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/ten-year-budget-history-table-20200320.pdf

Please let me know what is going to change.

https://www.heritage.org/environmen...d-maintenance-backlog-americas-national-parks

"Policymakers should explore other funding streams for America's parks, such as adjusting park fees and selling federal lands."


----------



## Vanilla

https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HCR012.html

I like it. Whgg the would anyone be afraid of doing this the right way?

"_House Minority Leader Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, who said he supports the resolution, called the process of monument designation under Clinton "terrible" and the administration failed to do itself any favors when it invoked the Antiquities Act in that manner.

While the Obama process was much different, King said he agreed there needs to be a legislation solution to the monument debate in Utah._" -from a KSL article

Good to have the House Minority Leader on board for a rational resolution to these matters. Sets a good example for others that you can have individual thought and not just have to take a position anti whatever the other side is saying. That's sure refreshing!


----------



## paddler

The resolution doesn't mention national conservation groups or the citizens of the entire United States, who in fact own the land in question. I am not optimistic about a Congressional solution, as years long efforts in this regard failed. And any bill passed by the Utah legislature will reflect the desires of the Republican supermajorities in both houses. They have a long record of opposing monument designations, no reason to think the tiger will change its stripes.

In addition, I specifically object to the introductory wording of this resolution:

_*WHEREAS, the state is a wise steward of the land and is committed to conservation*_

Saying so doesn't make it so.


----------



## Finnegan

Vanilla said:


> https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/static/HCR012.html
> 
> I like it. Whgg the would anyone be afraid of doing this the right way?


Been there, done that. Doesn't work. While there's more agreement than disagreement among the various stakeholders and they could be brought to a fair consensus with regard to BENM, Utah's elected officials have consistently refused to negotiate in good faith. Sad fact is that every time Utah's elected officials get involved, they resort to lists of "non-negotiables", misinformation, lies, character assassination and veiled threats.

This conflict has been going on for decades; the involvement of Utah politicians has obviously not been helpful. I'd argue that they have purposely prevented consensus. This is one of those instances in which we literally need "government by The People".

The tail's wagging the dog when politicians take it upon themselves to tell us what to think.


----------



## paddler

Another op ed in today's Trib, this one in support of restoring the original boundaries from the "Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance". Not the "Chris Stewart Environmental Degradation Brigade".

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2021/02/13/commentary-unique/


----------



## paddler

I see by the Trib that SITLA has returned energy leasing fees on areas that overlap the original BE boundaries. That's progress! One could argue that selling leases while the reduction by Trump was subject to litigation was unwise.


----------



## paddler

Haaland is confirmed as both our senators against. How long before our monuments are restored?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...rgy-interests-weigh-in/ar-BB1eChZa?li=BBnbfcL


----------



## Jedidiah

Ever notice how many of your threads often have you posting by yourself for weeks at a time?


----------



## paddler

Jedidiah said:


> Ever notice how many of your threads often have you posting by yourself for weeks at a time?


I know, right? Consider my posts PSAs.


----------



## Jedidiah

paddler said:


> I know, right? Consider my posts PSAs.


Right, that's what I'm gonna do.


----------



## paddler

Deb Haaland will visit Utah in April, and release her report after that. Don't know exact dates. I expect Biden will restore the boundaries. Our congressional delegation wants a legislative solution. Seems they didn't learn anything from the past years-long inaction by Congress.


----------



## paddler

Looks like Haaland toured BE yesterday, will meet with the Tribal folks today, and visit GS tomorrow. Read the editorial on BE in the Trib today. Interesting companion about the lobbying around the attempted reduction by Trump, discussing emails between that DB Lyman and Davallier, the slick New Orleans law firm that fleeced San Juan county. Watch this space.


----------



## Bax*

I wish that this wasnt a partisan process and that any POTUS considering monument action was required to visit the site themselves and to base their decision after a waiting period followed by certain guidelines that prevented bouncing back and forth from administration to administration.


----------



## paddler

Bax* said:


> I wish that this wasnt a partisan process and that any POTUS considering monument action was required to visit the site themselves and to base their decision after a waiting period followed by certain guidelines that prevented bouncing back and forth from administration to administration.


From a historical perspective, the attempted reduction of the monuments was unprecedented. The Olympic National Monument was designated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1909. He acted because the Washington Legislature failed in its efforts to protect the area from the logging industry. Sound familiar? There will always be politicians in the pockets of extractive industries railing against preservation of our public lands. That monument was reduced in 1915 by Wilson at the behest of, you guessed it, the timber and mining interests. They asserted that the reduction was necessary because of WW I and thus national security concerns, but that was probably just opportunistic. After all, when you say that national security is at risk, opposing such a reduction could be seen as unpatriotic. So, opposition to that reduction was not nearly as strong as it was against the BE and GS. There are parallels, however. The lead lawyer for Davallier, George Wentz, said that pushing the national security angle was critical to the argument for the reduction of our monuments due to the uranium therein. What a coincidence.

Back to the point. Most monument reductions or eliminations have been small and/or unopposed. Never has such a large and controversial reduction been proposed. If it wasn't for the previous POTUS's desire to erase his predecessor's legacy, the reduction would most likely not have been attempted. It was motivated by nothing more than spite on Trump's part aided and abetted by the aggrieved entitlement of the local political hacks. And, we don't even know if Trump's actions were legal. So, there's no reason to believe this would be a back and forth, a political football, as the right is asserting. But, it wasn't the first or last time Trump would engage in unprecedented and illegal behavior. And it wouldn't be the first or last time he acted out of spite, while favoring his allies and acting against the best interests of all Americans.

So, as in the Trib editorial, Biden should restore the monuments. Or even expand them to include all 1.9 million acres favored by the tribes.


----------



## 2full

The tribes should NOT be the only or main factor in the decision. They represent a Very small percentage of the people that would/should have a voice in the process. 
I really try not to be political and ignore most of what you post. (Along with others). But there really IS other opinions besides the left wing side. 
I know that is very hard to understand for some people. 
Okay, I'm out.


----------



## middlefork

I would be interested in hearing about all the mineral resources around Bears Ears. Except for a small area of uranium most all the the test holes have not proved viable.

No matter what happens the increased damage the last few years has done nothing but hurt the area.


----------



## paddler

2full said:


> The tribes should NOT be the only or main factor in the decision. They represent a Very small percentage of the people that would/should have a voice in the process.
> I really try not to be political and ignore most of what you post. (Along with others). But there really IS other opinions besides the left wing side.
> I know that is very hard to understand for some people.
> Okay, I'm out.


I didn't say that the tribes should be the only factor in Biden's decision. This land is federal land, this land belongs to you and me. As Woodie Guthrie said,

"This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me".

It belongs to all Americans, past, present and future. We are merely custodians. So, neither the tribes nor any other group should have more to say over our public lands than any other. This was the impetus behind the Antiquities Act. POTUS is the one person entrusted to act on behalf of all Americans. As has been previously noted, the Act has no provision allowing a President to reduce a previously designated monument. It took a POS POTUS to try.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> As has been previously noted, the Act has no provision allowing a President to reduce a previously designated monument. It took a POS POTUS to try.


As has been previously noted, this is not the first time a president has reduced a previously designated monument. You know how many times FDR did it alone? (Hint...more than Trump.) 

But again, we don't have to let facts get in the way of your emotions.


----------



## paddler

Excellent op-ed in the Trib this morning by Scott Groene, SUWA director.


----------



## Vanilla

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2021/03/22/document_gw_18.pdf



It's probably a good sign you are on the right track when your opinion aligns with the concerns of the chief justice. Let's get this ball rolling!


----------



## backcountry

That's not subtle. 😳


----------



## PBH

2full said:


> The tribes should NOT be the only or main factor in the decision. They represent a Very small percentage of the people that would/should have a voice in the process.


I usually agree with 2Full, and I kind of do here as well -- but there is some irony in this. How often have we heard rural Utah cry out "locals should have more power" or more say in what happens to our "local" lands? And yet in this instance, where the "local" majority (ie: Native Americans in San Juan county) want more protections, and we (the rest of us white mormons) want it opened up with no monument....




Reparations seem to be a hot topic lately. I wonder what Native American's think when our politicians starting discussing reparations for groups of people who were historically mistreated?? Sorry. I think that's what is called a tangent...


----------



## 2full

All I was saying is that our society and political system is set up as majority rules. 
The post before mine when I put that out there was saying that the tribes should have a big say in how this whole mess turns out. 
It has to be a decision made as a whole. 
Not catering to ANY minority opinion or agenda. 
However that turns out.


----------



## Catherder

2full said:


> All I was saying is that our society and political system is set up as majority rules.
> The post before mine when I put that out there was saying that the tribes should have a big say in how this whole mess turns out.
> It has to be a decision made as a whole.
> Not catering to ANY minority opinion or agenda.
> However that turns out.



I only put this out for discussion and not argument, (because I don't necessarily disagree with you for starters) but nationally, the Obama/Clinton sized monuments poll very favorably with majorities of Americans favoring it. Additionally, the last time I saw a Utah poll, it was about 50:50. I guess what I'm saying is that it can get messy declaring that "majority rules" will be how such decisions are made. Which majority of whom?


----------



## 2full

I just don't want a couple of special interest groups to get together and decide for all of us.


----------



## paddler

There's always time for a legislative solution. Restoring the monuments will not prevent that from happening. Personally, I would like to see a full restoration of the original boundaries and funding to provide for proper care and management, including a visitors center, signage of the boundaries, and any other costs to provide for protection of the antiquities, garbage collection, and law enforcement within the boundaries. Given prior experience, I have no faith that a legislative solution will be hammered out, so immediate restoration should happen ASAP.


----------



## Vanilla

Governor Cox has indicated if president acts unilaterally to expand monuments, Utah will likely sue. I have really liked Gov Cox so far, and this only helps his cause!

It’s about time this Act gets enforced as written, and maybe even better yet, gets severely amended or completely repealed after the Supreme Court gets to weigh in. I won’t hold my breath for the repeal. I’ll accept being enforced as written.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Governor Cox has indicated if president acts unilaterally to expand monuments, Utah will likely sue. I have really liked Gov Cox so far, and this only helps his cause!
> 
> It’s about time this Act gets enforced as written, and maybe even better yet, gets severely amended or completely repealed after the Supreme Court gets to weigh in. I won’t hold my breath for the repeal. I’ll accept being enforced as written.


Pretty difficult given artifacts are scattered all through the monuments. Who decides which are included or excluded? Based on density? That would require an exhaustive survey of the areas, which could take years. I don't see a simple solution, except maybe expanding the court to compensate for the two stolen seats.


----------



## paddler

Haaland sent her report to the President. Watch this space.


----------



## 2full

I'm sure the fix was in from the start. 
She is not going to tell Biden anything he doesn't want to hear. 
She wasn't exactly unbiased to begin with.


----------



## paddler

2full said:


> I'm sure the fix was in from the start.
> She is not going to tell Biden anything he doesn't want to hear.
> She wasn't exactly unbiased to begin with.


Yeah, Zinke was totally unbiased, a real peach. Resigned due to scandals, one of many from Trump's cabinet.


----------



## dubob

paddler said:


> Yeah, Zinke was totally unbiased, a real peach. *Resigned due to scandals*, one of many from Trump's cabinet.


Unfounded, unproven, libelous, claptrap by a known liberal. A grand jury was convened in Feb 2019 to look into allegations of malfeasance as Interior Secretary and after over 2 years, no indictment has been issued. Typical double speak from the left; much ado about nothing.

A DuckDuckGo search of the web turns up ZERO prosecutions/convictions of any wrong doing by Secretary Zinke; allegations, misinformation, innuendo, & unsubstantiated charges - yes. But prosecutions a/o convictions - no. But, hey, show me a link to information that I couldn't find indicating a conviction and I will gladly admit I was wrong.


----------



## paddler

dubob said:


> Unfounded, unproven, libelous, claptrap by a known liberal. A grand jury was convened in Feb 2019 to look into allegations of malfeasance as Interior Secretary and after over 2 years, no indictment has been issued. Typical double speak from the left; much ado about nothing.
> 
> A DuckDuckGo search of the web turns up ZERO prosecutions/convictions of any wrong doing by Secretary Zinke; allegations, misinformation, innuendo, & unsubstantiated charges - yes. But prosecutions a/o convictions - no. But, hey, show me a link to information that I couldn't find indicating a conviction and I will gladly admit I was wrong.


So, he resigned to spend more time with his family? What did you think about his flying the "Secretarial Flag"?


----------



## dubob

paddler said:


> So, he resigned to spend more time with his family? What did you think about his flying the "Secretarial Flag"?


That's it? That's all ya got? That's your 'scandal'? WOW! Your insight into all things political is impressive.


----------



## backcountry

My Spidey senses are warning me this will feed the beasts of both sides. I really hope I'm wrong and this doesn't escalate anything.


----------



## Critter

This one has ran its course.



Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------

