# Breaking News.



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

It sounds like Spencer Cox and our local politicos are disappointed. That makes me happy.









President Biden set to restore Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments to original sizes


Utah elected officials expressed disappointment with the Biden administration’s decision to restore the monuments.




www.kuer.org


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Until they do this the right way it is just going to be a yo-yo game going back and forth when the administrations change.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Until funding is in place it is just another wish list.
I would love to see a list of accomplishments that are protecting the area since the original designation. So far all I've seen is increased usage driven by publicity. The threat of energy extraction is a moot point as no viable deposits exist as to regards to Bears Ears.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Critter said:


> Until they do this the right way it is just going to be a yo-yo game going back and forth when the administrations change.



Anybody know if the NRDC et al and 2 other consolidated lawsuits are still being stayed? I'm wondering if they'll ever proceed and have a ruling on executive authority to shrink monuments. I'm guessing not as most presidential administrations are pretty intolerant of reducing executive power.

I have no clue what the new era of land management will bring but the old one is dead. There is no way to foster bilateral buy-in across stakeholder groups for landscape scale projects in our current political environment. And my guess is we are years away from reaching the peak of the escalation and tension.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> "F" Biden He can't change his diaper by himself.


We have a "Like" button. We need a "Dislike" button.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Backcountry, I’m guessing those lawsuits all become moot once the executive action being challenged is no longer in place, and will be dismissed by the courts. If this administration wanted that answer (and I assure you it didn’t), it would have had to leave the prior challenged action in place and let the case make its way through the appellate process.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Can either side get very excited about this, one way or the other? It will just get changed back when the "R"s return to power, and so on, and so on.......(assuming we still have a functioning democracy) 

All these changes do is stoke the fires of outrage for the aggrieved side.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Can either side get very excited about this, one way or the other? It will just get changed back when the "R"s return to power, and so on, and so on.......(assuming we still have a functioning democracy)
> 
> All these changes do is stoke the fires of outrage for the aggrieved side.


I disagree. Trump caused this mess by attempting to overreach the powers vested in the president by the Antiquities Act. Biden is just cleaning up one more mess created by the catastrophe that was the Trump presidency. The next Republican president, if there ever is one, should just leave well enough alone.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

paddler said:


> Biden is just cleaning up one more mess created by *the catastrophe that was the Trump presidency*.


I am not a party person. I am very Ron Swanson with things.

I can confidently say that my life has not improved over 2021 due to any political things, and I can say the economy is substantially more complicated in the broad industries I deal with. It has been a negative in my opinion.

I don't know many people who had a bad 4 years unless they are easily offended or watch the news too much (which is basically if you watch partisan news at all).


That said, I agree this is a yoyo game. Government isn't good at managing anything, land isn't any different.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Please keep your comments related to the outdoor issue. Thanks


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

middlefork said:


> The threat of energy extraction is a moot point as no viable deposits exist as to regards to Bears Ears.


If that's the case, then why does any of it matter?

That being said, I'm happy to see the Escalante restored back to its original size. More public land protected from fences that say "no trespassing / hunting" are a good thing, in my opinion. Further, this should stop any talk of a new national park for a while.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Further, this should stop any talk of a new national park for a while.


This is a good point. (for the next 3 years at least) 

Although this action might embolden the "R"s to ramrod Stewart/Gobert NP through when the next administration shrinks things back down. It would be a lot harder to rescind a NP as opposed to the current monument status.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Although this action might embolden the "R"s to ramrod Stewart/Gobert NP through when the next administration shrinks things back down.


Sometimes you get exactly what you ask for. In this case, I hope that never happens. But if the R's continue to fight the monument, then I think they will get just that -- the monument may shrink, or go away, and a NP will take it's place. 


that's a "lose / lose" for all of us.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

PBH said:


> If that's the case, then why does any of it matter?
> 
> That being said, I'm happy to see the Escalante restored back to its original size. More public land protected from fences that say "no trespassing / hunting" are a good thing, in my opinion. Further, this should stop any talk of a new national park for a while.


I agree on GSENM.

Per point, at least with BENM....there are multiple benefits. The obvious one is Increased historical recognition for regional tribes. Given our history that's not a minor issue.

That said most benefits are contingent on increased funding and personnel which is highly uncertain. The region has lost a ton of antiquities over the years and increased attention only exacerbates that problem. Without a long term funding package the place will remain vulnerable to administrative and congressional whims and vagaries. Hence my general conclusion.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

For so long I was anti monument and wanted it to be eliminated and return to what it once was.

Problem is, once designated the place is “on the map” and people are suddenly interested in it and want to see what all the hubbub is about.

For YEARS I wanted the monument rescinded and PBH kept telling me it wasn’t a good idea and that the State of Utah would piece-mill it out for money. Just like clockwork, Chris Stewart led the charge and started campaigning for mining rights etc. PBH was right, I was wrong.

Now my tune is quite different. I’d rather leave things as they once were prior to Zinke’s efforts.

The BLM conducted a survey about the reason people visited GSENM and the #1 response was “solitude”.

Yet Utah ran full steam ahead trying to dedicate a national park to put a rear dot on the map and draw more traffic, more pollution (noise, and literal), more Instagram influencers, more malarkey. Yeah, it would increase tax revenues etc. But at what cost? I can’t answer that.

Point being, I’d actually like things to go back to the way they were just to keep Utah’s grubby mitts off of it and from mortgaging our future.

HOWEVER I agree that the yo-yo back and forth is utter crap. It’s a pissin match through and through. Heaven forbid we just make a decision that’s right for the situation. TBH I feel like monuments are purely a legacy flex and can cause more harm than good. If the land is under BLM control, I’d prefer it stay that way for now until a better management philosophy can be implemented.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

The one thing about trying to ram through a national park is that you have to ram it through Congress, not just the White House. That's a dicey proposition in the best of times (everyone remember "I'm Just a Bill"?) and these aren't the best of times for bipartisan cooperation. If the Senate still has a filibuster, the Democrats will almost certainly use that to block a smaller park, and most in the GOP will not support a larger park. The Republicans will have the same kinds of troubles the Democrats are now having on spending: moderates will go for a park as a compromise against a larger monument, but the most conservative, anti-public land members will oppose a new park of any size. I suspect the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Park Act of 2025 would be sitting on Capitol Hill for quite a while.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

There's 100,000 acres of private land within the original BE boundary.

Do you think the property owners are going to be allowed to build McDonalds and Hotels on their land within the monument?

-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Black's?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Bax* said:


> For so long I was anti monument and wanted it to be eliminated and return to what it once was.
> 
> Problem is, once designated the place is “on the map” and people are suddenly interested in it and want to see what all the hubbub is about.
> 
> ...


It's odd to me that people think yo-yoing is inevitable. It's not. Trump's attempt to reduce the monuments was unique to Trump, motivated to a great degree by his desire to destroy Obama's legacy. It's in his DNA, a very petty and mistaken belief that by denigrating others he makes himself look better, "Strong!". What he did had never been done before, rescinding a monument unliterally and against opposition just out of spite. I doubt it will happen again, unless we make the mistake of electing another malignant narcissist to the WH. 

It's also important to call out our political leaders, state and federal, who are disappointed that the White House didn't "collaborate", seek a legislative solution. Obama gave that process as much time as possible, but it failed and would again. Obama responded to formal requests from the tribal council and waited till the waning days of his presidency in an effort to allow congress to act. Our representatives (Bishop) acted in bad faith, so Obama stepped in. 

The monuments have seen increasing public support since their designation, a trend that will likely continue. Now we just need to fund them.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

That number is 8x higher than the official claims of 12k acres of private land. 




https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/bear-ears-fact-sheet.pdf



(Fact sheet from before reduction)


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

For me it has never been that a monument was designated, but HOW it was designated. I've maintained for years that presidents were abusing the plain language stating _"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."_ 

It is unfortunate the current administration won't let the lawsuits go forward so we can get the answer to that. The SCOTUS very clearly agreed with me in its denial of cert in the Massachusetts Lobstermen case , and I would like to see constitutional order restored. If you don't believe me, here is the chief justice's own words in an official court statement: 

_"While the Executive enjoys far greater flexibility in setting aside a monument under the Antiquities Act, that flexibility, as mentioned, carries with it a unique constraint: Any land reserved under the Act must be limited to the smallest area compatible with the care and management of the objects to be protected. See §320301(b). *Somewhere along the line, however, this restriction has ceased to pose any meaningful restraint. A statute permitting the President in his sole discretion to designate as monuments “landmarks,” “structures,” and “objects”—along with the smallest area of land compatible with their management—has been transformed into a power without any discernible limit to set aside vast and amorphous expanses of terrain above and below the sea.*" (emaphsis added) _

It's too bad the caselaw won't be able to reflect this wise, plain reading of the statute. At least not yet. It is beyond time to amend the Antiquities Act and restore constitutional principles to the governance of public lands.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

PBH said:


> Black's?


Mostly SITLA lands, my memory was foggy. The article states 109k acres.





__





109K Acres of School Trust Land Captured in Bears Ears National Monument | Trust Lands Administration







trustlands.utah.gov





-DallanC


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> For me it has never been that a monument was designated, but HOW it was designated. I've maintained for years that presidents were abusing the plain language stating _"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."_
> 
> It is unfortunate the current administration won't let the lawsuits go forward so we can get the answer to that. The SCOTUS very clearly agreed with me in its denial of cert in the Massachusetts Lobstermen case , and I would like to see constitutional order restored. If you don't believe me, here is the chief justice's own words in an official court statement:
> 
> ...


My ideology (which is pretty non-existent and amorphous now adays) does not necessarily align with that take except that I believe it's ultimately a likely path to sustainable designations in the future. It could likely be the only path forward if we want the yo-yoing to end. 

The weakness to the argument is that the SCOTUS doesn't necessarily agree, just the chief justice, at least that's the inherent limitations of the document: it wasn't signed by anyone else and was solely the words of Roberts. The denial of cert wasn't based upon the question of size at all, even if Robert's language about it was sharp (and sarcastic). As you insinuate the upper limits of the "smallest" language has yet to be adjudicated by the courts and the Congress has yet to amend the language. Hopefully they'll eventually define it but all of us know that alteration is unlikely to be amenable to a large swath of the nation's polarized partisans. But at least it would be law or adjudicated, finally.

Many are interpreting Roberts questions and individual statement as predictive of the SCOTUS's likely direction but that's anything but clear. Robert's wording wasn't subtle but the lower courts haven't dealt with it yet. Which is interesting as it's a counter argument that's been raised for more than a century and there have been plenty of chances to appeal rulings. And in that century we now have a ton of leniency for executive privilege in interpretation of the language. That momentum carries weight. 

Who knows where this all ends. But the short and medium term effects just plain suck.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few comments on the "realpolitik" aspects of what has been commented.


1.


TheOtherJeff said:


> The one thing about trying to ram through a national park is that you have to ram it through Congress, not just the White House. That's a dicey proposition in the best of times (everyone remember "I'm Just a Bill"?) and these aren't the best of times for bipartisan cooperation.


I think your overall analysis of the partisan climate is sound and agree largely with you. However, my concern about a National Park is that the concept is not ideologically something that liberals would oppose. I could easily see an "R" administration shrinking things again and Stewart proposing Stewart/Gobert NP again. The "D"s could say, "fine" have your NP, (which will indeed "Protect" that acreage, their goal), and we will worry about the rest when we come back in power.

2.


paddler said:


> It's odd to me that people think yo-yoing is inevitable. Trump's attempt to reduce the monuments was unique to Trump,


Disagree. I would fully expect a hypothetical President Romney to shrink the monuments based on his own statements. I would also expect other "R"s to do likewise. These monuments are now an ideological proxy war and much more of an issue than one presidents peeves with his predecessor.

3.


Vanilla said:


> It is unfortunate the current administration won't let the lawsuits go forward so we can get the answer to that.


Agree +100. It was the one way I saw as a permanent way out of the mess.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Mostly SITLA lands, my memory was foggy. The article states 109k acres.
> -DallanC


Lyman Family Farms money. They'll oppose the monument, and at the same time gobble up every piece of land they can to exploit the increased tourism.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

14th amendment.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> And in that century we now have a ton of leniency for executive privilege in interpretation of the language. That momentum carries weight.


Not legally, it doesn’t. The language is clear and plain. The statute contains a “shall,” not a “should” or “may.” Again, the Chief Justice is all be begging for that argument to get before the court.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Yeah, the Roberts court also gave us Citizens United and gutted the Voting Rights Act. So there's that.

The president has been allowed wide latitude in designations, probably in part because the definition of "_*along with the smallest area of land compatible with their management" *_ is vague. Especially in places like BE, where antiquities are scattered so widely. Shrinking it according to the above clause would be a years long, maybe decades long legal fight. Trump arbitrarily tried to shrink it with input from the extraction industries. We'll just see what happens down the road, but I strongly support the restoration.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla, are you actually saying the judiciary doesn't have a history of deference to the executive branch and it's interpretation of law and the Constitution? Or that a century of expansive leniency in interpretation of the Antiquities Act wording won't carry any legal weight in arguments if someone successfully brings forward a case about the "smallest" language?

That would seem an unexpected line of reasoning given if it was so clear cut we would have adjudicated the issue clearly by now since this argument is as old as the law itself. I mean the first major controversy was the Grand Canyon which was designated at 800k acres, roughly twenty times the size of the first series of monuments. That was in 1908.

Not to mention the legal arguments over the word "shall" in law. There is a reason Congress moved to using "must" last decade. And beyond those arguments, and expansive litigation, there is the complementary component of the law's wording, ie "with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.". Proper care and management inherently relies upon legal claims about executive power and privilege regarding an administration's actual designation and interpretation of what the object is and justification of size. This is especially important in conflicts over broad ecosystems or in this case the expansive range of the protected Antiquities. 

I interpret Robert's words the same as you but I think there is a range of legal interpretation that is playing out on the issue that conflicts with the arguments quoted above. If I had to bet I would wager on a reigning in of the act by the current SCOTUS, if a case came forward, but that's a guess given no one else signed the referenced document or had their own statement.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

paddler said:


> It's odd to me that people think yo-yoing is inevitable. It's not. Trump's attempt to reduce the monuments was unique to Trump,


I dont think it’s inevitable per-se but it is happening right now.

The scary thing about Trump’s actions to reduce monument sizes is precedence in my eyes.

If precedence is set, it can change the way things are done in the future.

Perhaps it’s my profession, but in looking at legal cases that is quite common to base an argument when referring to similar cases to begin the litigation process.

I actually agree with much of what you said though.

Political polarization scares me when it comes to many things we face. If we allow this precedence to continue, if we don’t hold our leaders accountable, if we don’t make our voices heard, then our lands and other rights and privileges could look very different depending on who is in office and which way the wind blows.

But again, I’m actually glad to see that the monuments are being set back to original boundaries. I was not in support of much of what was being proposed by the State.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Backcountry, on my phone my previous post is only showing half of what I wrote. Not sure why? When I hit edit it shows the whole thing. Here is the rest of it, in case you’re only seeing what I’m seeing. I think it more fully answers your question about what I’m saying.




backcountry said:


> Many are interpreting Roberts questions and individual statement as predictive of the SCOTUS's likely direction but that's anything but clear. Robert's wording wasn't subtle…


Oh, the direction the Court would take on this is clear. Don’t be tricked with how things actually work. If you’ve paid attention to Roberts, he doesn’t land on the losing side of issues. There is nothing that is 100% certain in court cases, but whatever that possible number under that 100% happens to be, that is how confident I am that the SCOTUS would strike down any acreage found to not specifically achieve the designation to protect specific objects, landmarks, etc. If it could be shown that even 10 acres does not go to further the protection of the antiquities in question, it would be removed under judicial review. I’m as confident in that right now as I am any legal argument there is out there. Chief Justice Roberts is all but begging to have that case to rule on.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Backcountry, on my phone my previous post is only showing half of what I wrote. Not sure why? When I hit edit it shows the whole thing. Here is the rest of it, in case you’re only seeing what I’m seeing. I think it more fully answers your question about what I’m saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One thing is clear about the current SCOTUS. As evidenced by their one paragraph ruling to allow S.B 8 to go into effect, they are a conservative political entity. Thankfully, the 113 page ruling by Judge Pitman was a meticulous rebuke of the Supreme Court, the court should be more than a bit embarrassed by his work. BTW, Roberts was in the minority on that ruling, so there's no telling how they would rule. With the court packed by McConnell, Trump and the Federalist Society, there's no reason to be optimistic.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

paddler said:


> The president has been allowed wide latitude in designations, probably in part because the definition of "_*along with the smallest area of land compatible with their management" *_ is vague. Especially in places like BE, where antiquities are scattered so widely.


Very good point, and I would add that it would be unlikely to succeed. The standard for substantive review of whether a particular boundary is, in fact, the smallest compatible area would be merely substantial evidence, and that's not a high standard at all. And, per Chevron v. NRDC, in this case the courts must accept the executive's interpretation of the meaning of "smallest compatible area." Taken together, a district court would have a very hard time holding that "smallest compatible area" is the kind of justiciable standard that could support judicial review of an executive action. And I doubt very much that a higher court would overturn two fundamental precedents governing public administration over Bear's Ears, no matter how much Roberts might want to get an outcome on this particular issue.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

One of the reasons I'm skeptical is the broadness of the objects Obama used to justify the monument:









Presidential Proclamation -- Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument


ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BEARS EARS NATIONAL MONUMENT - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION




obamawhitehouse.archives.gov





Given the "objects of historic or scientific interest" are so wide ranging how does a plantiff find the type of evidence that it's not aligned with the parameters of the Antiquities Act? My guess is the daunting task of that is why Trump chose reduction over litigation AND it's why the multiple cases moving forward are for different monuments. I assume president's preemptively square the object itself with size in proclamations in anticipation of lawsuits.

I'm sincerely curious as I think "both sides" have legitimate concerns that affect our state and public lands. I just don't know how those arguing for reigning in the size of monuments via the courts prove they're too big according to both the law itself and court standards. I don't disagree BENM is massive but it's seems properly coupled to the objects designated to justify the proclamations.

*I don't necessarily agree we should designate such large monuments nor do I believe it's currently sustainable. But per law, it seems to me the broadness of the Antiquities Act itself lends itself to such expansive boundaries and the objects clause will likely have to be redefined/limited alongside that of the size clause if the law is to be effectively altered.


----------



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

Critter said:


> Until they do this the right way it is just going to be a yo-yo game going back and forth when the administrations change.


We shall see. Eventually if that’s the case the courts will settle it. Cutting monuments like Trump did isn’t popular or standard however, the likelihood it is done again is quite slim.

A great day for wildlife, wild places, wild Utah landscapes, and Native Americans who have had their voice gerrymandered out until a judge let their voice be heard.Happy to see Bears Ears and GSENM’s restored.


----------



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

Bax* said:


> I dont think it’s inevitable per-se but it is happening right now.
> 
> The scary thing about Trump’s actions to reduce monument sizes is precedence in my eyes.
> 
> ...


I personally think the monument thing was very unique to Trump. Monuments become more and more popular as time goes by and several polls even showed a majority of Utahns support both monuments under their designations. Now that Native Americans have a fair voice in the area, localities have also voted in favor of the original boundaries. Utah congressional representation cares about “local control” until that “local control” is a Native American majority county board right next to the monument voting for its expansion. Utah congressional representatives seem to care about a very specific voice they want to listen to. San Juan and Grand County councils both voted to support a resolution to President Biden asking for just this. 









San Juan County asks President-elect Joe Biden to immediately restore Bears Ears National Monument


With fewer than 50 days remaining before Inauguration Day, the San Juan County Commission passed a resolution Tuesday calling upon President-elect Joe Biden “to take immediate action to restore the Bears Ears National Monument” once he assumes office.




www.sltrib.com













Utah’s Grand County asks President-elect Joe Biden to restore Bears Ears monument borders


The Grand County Commission has unanimously asked President-elect Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise and act quickly to restore the original boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument.




www.sltrib.com


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Utah congressional representation cares about “local control” until that “local control” is a Native American majority county board right next to the monument voting for its expansion. Utah congressional representatives seem to care about a very specific voice they want to listen to.


This couldnt have been better stated IMHO.

Selective hearing on Utah's part for the topic. "I hear what I want to hear and nothing else"

We are all guilty of this to some extent but when our elected officials arent listening to their constituents.... seems like they need to tell us who is sponsoring their vacation home in the Bahamas......


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Nilla, aren't there 2 separate legal questions with monuments that are out there? 

1. Does the president have the right to shrink existing monuments, ala Trumps action?
2. Is the amount of land included in a given monument in excess of what is prescribed in the Antiquities act?

The answer to the former question affects the yo-yo effect. The answer(s) to the latter would probably be fought piecemeal for each contested monument and would not necessarily reach a conclusion anytime soon.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder- correct.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Nilla, aren't there 2 separate legal questions with monuments that are out there?
> 
> 1. Does the president have the right to shrink existing monuments, ala Trumps action?
> 2. Is the amount of land included in a given monument in excess of what is prescribed in the Antiquities act?
> ...


The Trib ran an excellent editorial on the monuments today. Utah's politicians can waste a lot of time and taxpayer money griping about and trying to fight our monuments. It will all be for naught. Maybe they should spend their time lobbying for all the support possible; financial, manpower, infrastructure, etc, to make the monuments the best they can be. Imagine monuments with comprehensive visitors centers that explain the history of the lands and emphasize conservation of these jewels, the "Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints" ethos. Imagine.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.

Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.

I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

taxidermist said:


> Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.
> 
> Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.
> 
> I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.



It was politicians at the federal level, acting at the behest of thoughtful citizens, who started conservation as we know it today. The notion that Washington hasn't done anything positive since the establishment of the western states is asinine and ahistorical. You can disagree on the modern scope of federal land management but we have the documents, and photographs, of how Western states were fairing historically without federal intervention in regards to a plethora of land and wildlife issues. Our ecosystems would be a whole lot poorer for hunters and fisherman without ground breaking legislation that influenced the world. 

Imagine where we'd be without the MBTA and how poor opportunity for waterfowl hunting would be if we'd left that up to the states? 

Shaking my head at such ignorant comments. And people mock millennials for their lack of critical thinking.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.
> 
> Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.
> 
> I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.


Actually, the people have decided. The areas in question are federal land, the people in Utah have no more say in its management than people in Maine, Florida, Washington state, or anybody else. The people elected Congress, Congress passed the Antiquities Act which empowers the President, elected by the people, to designate national monuments. There is no such thing as "overreach" by Washington in the management of federal lands. 

Read the editorial and be careful what you wish for. Each of our five national parks were first designated as national monuments. What would have happened to them under state control?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in.


This is no different than Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. These areas are NOT national parks. Wildlife is already managed by the State.



FS.USDA said:


> The monument does not change the State of Utah’s jurisdiction as it relates to fish and wildlife management.














https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/bear-ears-fact-sheet.pdf


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

taxidermist said:


> Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.



Actually, in polling this issue, leaving the monuments as is runs at 50% support among all of Utah's residents in very "red" Utah. Nationally, they have wide popular support. 

Of course, if you find the right subset, they are hugely unpopular. (Residents of the "435" that trace back their residence a minimum of 50 years, but not prior to 1847. Flying a Trump flag in home or truck will allow the residency requirement to be shortened to 20 years )


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Catherder said:


> Actually, in polling this issue, leaving the monuments as is runs at 50% support among all of Utah's residents in very "red" Utah. Nationally, they have wide popular support.
> 
> Of course, if you find the right subset, they are hugely unpopular. (Residents of the "435" that trace back their residence a minimum of 50 years, but not prior to 1847. Flying a Trump flag in home or truck will allow the residency requirement to be shortened to 20 years )


A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I sincerely don't understand this relatively new trend. I fully support questioning the modern scope of federal influence on land management and wildlife. We should be able to have thoughtful disagreement about different preferences and how to interpret new information.

But that is different than revising historical fact to fit our ideology. Wanting small federal influence right now can coexist with a history that involved much needed federal intervention that saved many ecosystems and so much wildlife. Our legacy as hunters and fisherman is largely influenced by what were thoughtful and forward thinking laws and policies of those eras, especially the early 20th century. Not to mention how a generation of federal employees who experienced that dynamic shift at the federal level went on to form the state wildlife and forestry services that we so rely upon now. 

If it was a one off I wouldn't be worried but I've seen more of this in the last 5-10 years than is sustainable. I don't think people have thought through the implications of editing out the historic role of the federal government when it comes to fights across stakeholder groups.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.


OK, I'll bite. Why should I as a resident of the Wasatch front have less of a voice than someone who lives in Cedar City? I still go down there some. Where do you draw the line? Native Americans living in the area have some strong opinions about BENM. Should they be the only voice as to what happens? Or minimized, as some shrinkage proponents would say? That was the point of my previous post.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Catherder said:


> OK, I'll bite. Why should I as a resident of the Wasatch front have less of a voice than someone who lives in Cedar City? I still go down there some. Where do you draw the line? Native Americans living in the area have some strong opinions about BENM. Should they be the only voice as to what happens? Or minimized, as some shrinkage proponents would say? That was the point of my previous post.


I'm just saying where the support comes from. If you want to support it that is fine.

As for Native American's know a number of them that are against it, so what does that mean? It just says that people have opinions for and against.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Critter said:


> A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.


Ugh, having spent a fair amount of my explorations in both GSENM and BENM I find that an odd wager. The Wasatch Front has a disproportionate amount of visitors to both areas. 

Not to mention the well studied outcome that monument, wilderness and park designations become a principle driver of economic change for the region. The primary tourism users are the outsiders. Designation is often cited as a principle reason for both visiting an area and actually moving there. That demographic shift is ironically demonized and used as a counter argument to designation to begin with, ie preservation of local traditions and culture.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I was very much a proponent of Utah controlling Utah lands when Clinton dedicated his monument. It had some adverse economic impacts that harmed people I knew and created a bitter taste that lasted for years (good grief, why couldnt Clinton come to Utah to dedicate the monument he created?!) but the long and short of it is that likely this monument designation has probably already created more cash flow through these areas than the initial impact that they created so that is a good thing right?

As Paddler mentioned, these were already Federal Lands that happened to be located in Utah. The State of Utah didn't control them, but the BLM did. So the real designation change from BLM land to monument land created _added protections_ to the land to keep from exploiting the lands.

Truth of the matter is that we can still hunt and recreate in these areas, and hopefully they will stay semi remote with somewhat low traffic. We cant do anything to change it (and after watching the Devil's Love Child Chris Stewart try and sell off rights to the land and make a National Park, I don't want to change it anyways) But the day we run a paved road down some of these areas, is the day we should lose our minds. That will forever change the landscape and make a zoo out of a circus and the clowns and morons will come in droves to etch their names in rock, leave garbage everywhere, steal artifacts, and leave nothing but regret by those who respect the land. 

This whole thing is a circular argument though. What's done is done. It was attempted to be undone but was re-done for a final dunning to be done with done and done some more of done. At this point, I am glad its a monument again and hope those elected representatives that tried to mess with our lands are kicked to the curb and replaced with someone who doesn't see dollar signs. 

If you want to make a difference, petition to re-evaluate the Antiquities Act for further designations. Ask for more checks and balances and require the designating party to visit the location multiple times before they can actually designate a monument. Require state governments to take a more active part so they cant complain that they were hoodwinked or not given satisfactory option for input. blah blah blah. 

Trump may have set precedence on changing monument boundaries and for all we know, the next administration might try to do the same thing.... welcome to the jungle I guess.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

backcountry said:


> Ugh, having spent a fair amount of my explorations in both GSENM and BENM I find that an odd wager. The Wasatch Front has a disproportionate amount of visitors to both areas.


I know dozens of people who have never been to any of Utah's National Parks and have no interest in even thinking of heading down to Bears Ears, much less to the Grand Staircase. I even know families who live within 100 miles of both and haven't bothered going to explore them. 

You have to be interested in this type of country to want to go visit it and as there becomes more and more urban families less and less want to go get dirty. I once had a person ask me about motels, or hotels in these type of areas. Without either they had no plans on going and once there they wouldn't venture much further from their vehicle than the gas pump to fill their vehicle.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Critter said:


> I know dozens of people who have never been to any of Utah's National Parks and have no interest in even thinking of heading down to Bears Ears, much less to the Grand Staircase. I even know families who live within 100 miles of both and haven't bothered going to explore them.
> 
> You have to be interested in this type of country to want to go visit it and as there becomes more and more urban families less and less want to go get dirty. I once had a person ask me about motels, or hotels in these type of areas. Without either they had no plans on going and once there they wouldn't venture much further from their vehicle than the gas pump to fill their vehicle.


Thats what has been interesting about Covid. Since people are having harder times visiting normal tourist destinations, they are venturing outdoors to the obscure locations like these more and more.

I was in Escalante at the end of August and stayed at a motel (which I rarely do, but was just there for a night and moved on) and watched the unusual new types of tourists filter up and down the street in the area. It really fascinated me to see the kinds of people venturing out now.

There are some pretty hipster locations there now which really intrigued me. What a strange evolution over time....


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> I know dozens of people who have never been to any of Utah's National Parks and have no interest in even thinking of heading down to Bears Ears, much less to the Grand Staircase. ...
> 
> You have to be interested in this type of country to want to go visit it and as there becomes more and more urban families less and less want to go get dirty.



That doesn't mean they won't in the future. Or their kids. Or their grandkids.
I could say the same thing about other monuments across the country (Statue of Liberty National Monument?).

This isn't just about what we want today. I hate to use the cliche, but we do need to keep some public places public so that our children have the opportunity. I don't want to see those opportunities removed.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Critter,

No doubt it's a small proportion of citizens in the Wasatch itself. But my experience is a large proportion of people who actually visit those areas are from the SLC region (a outcome I'm fine with). One of the biggest guide services in the area is a Wasatch ex-pat. Plus the Wasatch historically has a larger active and outdoorsy population than most metro regions, a statistic the state often flaunts to attract business.

Both Escalante and Boulder now have front country amenities to attract the growing urban crowd of tourists: yurts, glamping, boutique lodging, etc. It just had a destination race that often attracts runners from metro areas, much like the Moab half marathon. Escalante is a major destination for this growing group of outdoorsman.

Monument designation drives this exact change. It's one of the principle criticisms of BENM as the crowds have arrived before scaled staffing and infrastructure. Bluff, and maybe Blanding, are likely to experience a type of economic shift and eventually demographic change that's going to ruffle a few feathers.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Now we just need Congress to authorize funds to staff our monuments adequately, provide enforcement, visitor centers, education, sanitation, etc. Think our delegation will push for that, or even support it?


----------



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

taxidermist said:


> Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.
> 
> Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.
> 
> I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.


The people did decide. They elected councils closest to the monument who voted for Biden to do exactly what he did. Do you just want to ignore that fact? Grand and San Juan County councils voted for exactly what Biden did.


----------



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

paddler said:


> Now we just need Congress to authorize funds to staff our monuments adequately, provide enforcement, visitor centers, education, sanitation, etc. Think our delegation will push for that, or even support it?


No. Like always they’ll vote against any sort of funding to ensure it isn’t successful and then cry about federal management that they in large part have the keys to fix. (Pst, they just hate public land and want every excuse they can find to make their argument it shouldn’t be a thing)


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

paddler said:


> Now we just need Congress to authorize funds to staff our monuments adequately, provide enforcement, visitor centers, education, sanitation, etc. Think our delegation will push for that, or even support it?


Not likely on both counts but that is what really needs to happen. I won't hold my breath. The Department of the Interior is massively under funded now as is. But who knows? It may be a line item in the current budget discussions.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

All of ya applauding the monuments please answer this question for me? Have you been to Arches? Have you seen the crowding and pollution and noise that has come to that place as a Park? Anytime these areas are "discovered" they get ruined for me. I've spent my life on the Bears Ears and Staircase country. The only thing the monument designation will bring is hoards of people and ruin it. Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? I don't need a ranger to point at the pretty spots. Heck even both Cottonwood canyons are overcrowded messes. People = problems. I much prefer solitude. You know, the way it was before the government showed up and "saved it"! I'm the new guy here and I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I cant see a single value for the land or it's resources and history that will be better as a monument. More full motels in Monticello helps the pocketbooks there. More cars and ATVs and campers flooding Elk mountain or the Escalante desert will only destroy what makes them special. My 2 cents


----------



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

Critter said:


> I'm just saying where the support comes from. If you want to support it that is fine.
> 
> As for Native American's know a number of them that are against it, so what does that mean? It just says that people have opinions for and against.


Yes people have opinions. And the council in San Juan County, those who were elected, ran off the issue and openly said they supported expansion of the monument. They were elected on the issue. The real crux is people shout local control, until like I said, a majority Native American council votes in support of expansion. The local council did ask for this. Of course there are some people who won’t agree, there always is.


----------



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

Critter said:


> A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.


I’ll state this a fourth time to underscore it. Both local county councils closest in proximity to the monument voted in favor of returning it to its full designation. I’m sorry if you want to continually and willfully ignore the Native American voices who now sit on the council, but the support is also local.


----------



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

PBH said:


> That doesn't mean they won't in the future. Or their kids. Or their grandkids.
> I could say the same thing about other monuments across the country (Statue of Liberty National Monument?).
> 
> This isn't just about what we want today. I hate to use the cliche, but we do need to keep some public places public so that our children have the opportunity. I don't want to see those opportunities removed.



“Defenders of the short-sighted 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 wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the ‘*the game belongs 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 restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.* The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.”

-Theodore Roosevelt


----------



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

cowboy said:


> All of ya applauding the monuments please answer this question for me? Have you been to Arches? Have you seen the crowding and pollution and noise that has come to that place as a Park? Anytime these areas are "discovered" they get ruined for me. I've spent my life on the Bears Ears and Staircase country. The only thing the monument designation will bring is hoards of people and ruin it. Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? I don't need a ranger to point at the pretty spots. Heck even both Cottonwood canyons are overcrowded messes. People = problems. I much prefer solitude. You know, the way it was before the government showed up and "saved it"! I'm the new guy here and I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I cant see a single value for the land or it's resources and history that will be better as a monument. More full motels in Monticello helps the pocketbooks there. More cars and ATVs and campers flooding Elk mountain or the Escalante desert will only destroy what makes them special. My 2 cents


I am all for people experiences the outdoors and visiting the areas. I do get the idea of loving something to death and it’s a real thing, however, I want more and more proponents of wild places and wild things, and exposure is a part of the recipe that creates them.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

cowboy said:


> All of ya applauding the monuments please answer this question for me? Have you been to Arches? Have you seen the crowding and pollution and noise that has come to that place as a Park? Anytime these areas are "discovered" they get ruined for me. I've spent my life on the Bears Ears and Staircase country. The only thing the monument designation will bring is hoards of people and ruin it. Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? I don't need a ranger to point at the pretty spots. Heck even both Cottonwood canyons are overcrowded messes. People = problems. I much prefer solitude. You know, the way it was before the government showed up and "saved it"! I'm the new guy here and I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I cant see a single value for the land or it's resources and history that will be better as a monument. More full motels in Monticello helps the pocketbooks there. More cars and ATVs and campers flooding Elk mountain or the Escalante desert will only destroy what makes them special. My 2 cents


The spotlighting effect on monuments after designation is a real issue that isn't ever fully addressed. Management policy tries to mitigate some of the most egregious impacts, like campfire bans or wag bags in GSENM, but I'm skeptical it's enough. From reporting I've seen BENM is already experiencing the impacts of rapidly increasing visitation since the original proclamation.

But claims about no net positive miss the mark. The GSENM designation increased funding and access for scientific research; it's not by accident that the paleontological findings there have gained steam in the last 15 years. Not to mention transportation plans that reduce the ever splintering of two tracks throughout the desert region. The designation also had the positive impact of attracting eco-tourism that resulted in programs like the tamarisk removal program to try and help restore native flora. The list is finite but not small.

I to miss the solitude the monument once granted. I eventually resorted to winter backpacking trips to find it before largely turning away from explorations of the region when crowds really started arriving about 6+ years ago. But nonetheless I would never have visited the place at the turn of the century if it weren't for the designation and I'm grateful for such impactful experiences for 10+ years. Not to mention both monuments were "discovered" in the 60s by tourist and the plethora of guidebooks show that the first round of discovery had an impact as well. Recreation there isn't new itself, it's the scale that had truly changed.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I am all for people experiences the outdoors and visiting the areas. I do get the idea of loving something to death and it’s a real thing, however, I want more and more proponents of wild places and wild things, *and exposure is a part of the recipe that creates them*.


Sierra Club 101. Promote saving wilderness by promoting over use. And while there are many levels of impact.at a basic level people will impact it with any use.

One only has to look at the Monolith debacle last spring to see how instantaneous the impact can be.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Cowboy -- all those issues you pointed out? I'll take them over a fence in front of a gas well with a sign that reads: Keep Out.

but I'm crazy like that.


----------



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

middlefork said:


> Sierra Club 101. Promote saving wilderness by promoting over use. And while there are many levels of impact.at a basic level people will impact it with any use.
> 
> One only has to look at the Monolith debacle last spring to see how instantaneous the impact can be.


It’s like saying hunter recruitment is a bad thing because so many people are hunting in your spots. I agree places can become over-used. So make the designation bigger, make more designations, and spread them across our public lands. Humans impact everything I agree. I bristle at the notion that we shouldn’t designate areas because other Americans who aren’t you might come and enjoy those public lands. It’s also good for local economies in rural areas of the state who are largely drying up and seeing the world and markets pass them by. It is a good, sustainable, economic driver. I think there are many parts to the conversation. 328 million people. I would rather many of them become advocates for wild places, than never touch or see any of them. I’d rather they visit these places and become proponents of them, than never have a second thought about them. Our public lands, even just regular old forest service and BLM have seen increased human pressure and visitation. And yes it annoys me as well when I’m out there, but at the same time, they have every reason, right, and hopefully good motivation to be out there as myself.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The hunter recruitment comparison is apt for Utah. 

But there is a difference between promoting designation and promoting visitation. The Sierra Club model Middlefork references deserves criticism in my book as well. It was born in an era in which mass mobilization was one of a few choices for dealing with both sudden change (that often has broad, landscape wide implications) and the sudden lessons of the new fields of conservation and what would become ecology. 

But it's antiquated. We no longer need to recruit large swaths of individuals to visit these locals in order to protect them. Not only that but we now have data dealing with a sort of recreational carrying capacity that was clearly lacking in that era. But the recreational industrial complex is somewhat self-serving in it's desire to associate place with it's product. That doesn't mean many of these organizations don't care about conservation but there is an inherent hypocrisy/paradox to their strategy. 

I say that as someone who was part of the cycle and could no longer participate because of the impacts I saw.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

cowboy said:


> All of ya applauding the monuments please answer this question for me? Have you been to Arches? Have you seen the crowding and pollution and noise that has come to that place as a Park? Anytime these areas are "discovered" they get ruined for me. I've spent my life on the Bears Ears and Staircase country. The only thing the monument designation will bring is hoards of people and ruin it. Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? I don't need a ranger to point at the pretty spots. Heck even both Cottonwood canyons are overcrowded messes. People = problems. I much prefer solitude. You know, the way it was before the government showed up and "saved it"! I'm the new guy here and I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I cant see a single value for the land or it's resources and history that will be better as a monument. More full motels in Monticello helps the pocketbooks there. More cars and ATVs and campers flooding Elk mountain or the Escalante desert will only destroy what makes them special. My 2 cents




Arches - National park. Not a monument. 
Yellowstone - National park. Not a monument. 
Grand Canyon- National park. Not a monument. 

GSENM was surveyed by the BLM and the #1 reason for visiting was because people wanted solitude.

Turning these into National Parks would definitely ruin that idea. Its already busy out there, and the more we publicize this, the more attention it garners, the more attention the more desire to visit, more visitors, less solitude, more noise, more people.

But since 1996 when it was first designated, I mostly have had places to myself until the last 5 or so years. One famous waterfall that I wont mention here (no hotspotting sorry) I once had to myself for 2 hours or more.... now its a constant stream of people.

But the reason I say this is because if Utah had its way, they proposed a National Park! So I disagree with this notion. Utah has proven that it wants $$$. The Federal Government has basically just put regulations on the land use to make it harder to do what Utah seems dead set on ruining.

I once felt the way you do, but would encourage you to look at the history. Utah has a horrible track record on this issue.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The state of Utah can't compete with the juggernaut of the Federal bureaucracy's. But without funding the of federal government the protection are pretty much non existent. Has anybody seen any?


----------



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

backcountry said:


> The hunter recruitment comparison is apt for Utah.
> 
> But there is a difference between promoting designation and promoting visitation. The Sierra Club model Middlefork references deserves criticism in my book as well. It was born in an era in which mass mobilization was one of a few choices for dealing with both sudden change (that often has broad, landscape wide implications) and the sudden lessons of the new fields of conservation and what would become ecology.
> 
> ...


Around the most scenic areas I may agree that over-visitation has become a serious issue. As far as somewhere like Grand Staircase. I can go on 90% of it on a week day and find seclusion still to this day. If you’re visiting the actual tourist designations within the monuments I can see why there’s a too many people problem. However, what Trump did was concentrate that tourism to an even more narrow area no protect less. The vastness of a couple million acres is what makes the monuments special imo. They aren’t national parks, nor are there attractions among most of the acreage that will attract anything near what a place like Zion does. By the way….didn’t Chris Stewart propose turning parts of Grand Staircase into a national park? Give me a 2 million acre monument designation that has largely worked just fine instead and leave it the **** alone.


----------



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

middlefork said:


> The state of Utah can't compete with the juggernaut of the Federal bureaucracy's. But without funding the of federal government the protection are pretty much non existent. Has anybody seen any?


No. Because people like Mike Lee and Chris Stewart will undermine federal management and funding every chance they get to further their agenda and public land talking points. They literally hold the keys to do the things your speaking of such as funding and fixing policies but instead the sit around and harp about how bad federal management is. THEY ARE THE FEDS AND THEY SET POLICY AND FUNDING. They sit around and bitch at the very problem they create. People like Mike Lee have no interest in better federal land management. They have interest in undermining it to further their motives because they don’t like it.


----------



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

Bax* said:


> Arches - National park. Not a monument.
> Yellowstone - National park. Not a monument.
> Grand Canyon- National park. Not a monument.
> 
> ...


Chris Stewart proposed turning part of Grand Staircase into a national park. Grand Staircase is a place you can absolutely still get lost in solitude in most of its acreage. The Pauns bolsters one of the best mule deer herds on earth and hunters wait in line 20 years just for the opportunity to hunt on what is part of Grand Staircase. Monument designation has done nothing but protect its future and some vital desert mule deer habitat and corridors for one of the best mule deer herds on earth.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Around the most scenic areas I may agree that over-visitation has become a serious issue. As far as somewhere like Grand Staircase. I can go on 90% of it on a week day and find seclusion still to this day. If you’re visiting the actual tourist designations within the monuments I can see why there’s a too many people problem. However, what Trump did was concentrate that tourism to an even more narrow area no protect less. The vastness of a couple million acres is what makes the monuments special imo. They aren’t national parks, nor are there attractions among most of the acreage that will attract anything near what a place like Zion does. By the way….didn’t Chris Stewart propose turning parts of Grand Staircase into a national park? Give me a 2 million acre monument designation that has largely worked just fine instead and leave it the **** alone.


But monuments weren't designed to protect "the vastness of a couple million acres". A couple million acres may be necessary to protect the many objects being protected but inverting that was never the point. If the goal is vastness then we need a new law (at my core I support landscape scale management like that but for it to be sustainable it needs to be done in a forthright manner).

I wasn't for what Trump did, even it was politically expedient on his part. I'm not a fan of what Stewart planned either.

You may be correct about the 90% based upon acreage but that's a deceptive metric given how much of that acreage simply interconnects what most people are interested in experiencing from the monument. I've slogged across a lot of sand and ephedra covered benches out there but it was the cost of admission not the goal. Ultimately the metric you used ignores just how popular what were once secondary and tertiary elements of the region are now(areas I loved visiting for the solitude). You can see it in the expansion of recommendations in monument literature. Once obscure campgrounds are now listed out in the open at the visitor center and see people more into the fringe season each year. Not to mention membership sites listing vast amounts of places, the magazines giving away another "unknown" locale, the product catalogues sharing photos of spots you can isolate afterwards on Google Earth, etc. The recreational industrial complex loves that canyon country. 

Yes, the busloads and RVs full of people largely stay in the well known hot spots. But increased visitation has dispersed people into once remote areas. None of us are entitled to the solitude of those places but it was much easier 15 years ago to find it then it is now. Same can be said for every era before. It's a trend that's hard to ignore and the relatively bustling Escalante tourism economy is just one element of proof just like the need for wag bags in the canyon country has become an indicator of a stressed region (not the e. Coli leaching outhouses in Coyote/etc in the late 90s to early aughts were ever a sustainable idea). 

I'm not saying the counter proposals are better. However the recreational economy has never been transparent about it's broad impact. There are negative consequences to our strategies and we don't have to be stuck in decades old conservation paradigms that come at such costs. That's especially true if we have goals beyond the proclamation itself. 

(*And for clarity, people clearly have a right to visit. I don't critique that at all. I'm critiquing the recreational boosterism (by the state, recreational corporations, etc) that has outlasted its usefulness and justifications.). I sincerely hope the university programs and agencies are seeking creative new solutions.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Chris Stewart proposed turning part of Grand Staircase into a national park. Grand Staircase is a place you can absolutely still get lost in solitude in most of its acreage.


he sure did 🤬😡

I’ve written his office several times about it as a matter of fact.

He is Utah’s Judas IMHO


----------



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

backcountry said:


> But monuments weren't designed to protect "the vastness of a couple million acres". A couple million acres may be necessary to protect the many objects being protected but inverting that was never the point. If the goal is vastness then we need a new law (at my core I support landscape scale management like that but for it to be sustainable it needs to be done in a forthright manner).
> 
> I wasn't for what Trump did, even it was politically expedient on his part. I'm not a fan of what Stewart planned either.
> 
> ...


For the first part, I get the intent of the Act, but protection of areas and antiquities can go hand in hand. If protecting the antiquities also permanently protects a couple million acres of vast landscapes I support it.

And as for the increased visitation. America’s public lands just aren’t a secret anymore. There’s a lot of people on this world and country, and there’s a lot that want to go outdoors. Welcome to a capitalist society. Of course recruitment of new people outdoors has business motivations. One thing I wish would pass and would seriously support is a tax on a bigger variety of outdoor apparel and gear to go towards management and conservation like the taxes we pay on ammo and firearms. More investment is certainly needed from all these new “non-consumptive” users.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Bax* said:


> Arches - National park. Not a monument.
> Yellowstone - National park. Not a monument.
> Grand Canyon- National park. Not a monument.
> 
> ...





#1DEER 1-I said:


> For the first part, I get the intent of the Act, but protection of areas and antiquities can go hand in hand. If protecting the antiquities also permanently protects a couple million acres of vast landscapes I support it.
> 
> And as for the increased visitation. America’s public lands just aren’t a secret anymore. There’s a lot of people on this world and country, and there’s a lot that want to go outdoors. Welcome to a capitalist society. Of course recruitment of new people outdoors has business motivations. One thing I wish would pass and would seriously support is a tax on a bigger variety of outdoor apparel and gear to go towards management and conservation like the taxes we pay on ammo and firearms. More investment is certainly needed from all these new “non-consumptive” users.


Defining and taxing what is and what is not "outdoor apparel" would be difficult. Better to reverse the Trump/Republican tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy. Revising our tax system, while at the same time funding the IRS to improve enforcement so that tax avoidance and evasion is reduced or eliminated could fund those agencies that have had their budgets cut back for so long. We could maintain our national parks, catch up on what I've heard is a huge maintenance backlog, fund our monuments, etc.

I'm not at all opposed to user fees, and in fact they make lots of sense. The question is how to fairly charge non-consumptive users.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Let's step back 150 years or more and take a look at what was here before we came into the picture. I'm sure the lands were pristine and beautiful. The Native Americans were taking care of "Mother Earth" and helped settlers as they began to occupy the area. Little did they know that the "White Man" would take advantage of them and push them out to keep the land (mother earth) for themselves and eventually begin screwing it up. 

As much as we (Government) try to "protect" the land from the beast we created and in someway do our best to reverse the damage created, it tends to go sideways most the time. If we could turn back the clock, what would we change in these types of issues?? 

Whatever happens to the Ears, I hope it is for ALL the people, not just a push for political bias.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Has anybody seen any?


I haven't seen any new gas wells.
I haven't seen any new fences / gates with "Keep Out" signs.

I have seen a lot of beautiful country.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> For the first part, I get the intent of the Act, but protection of areas and antiquities can go hand in hand. If protecting the antiquities also permanently protects a couple million acres of vast landscapes I support it.
> 
> And as for the increased visitation. America’s public lands just aren’t a secret anymore. There’s a lot of people on this world and country, and there’s a lot that want to go outdoors. Welcome to a capitalist society. Of course recruitment of new people outdoors has business motivations. One thing I wish would pass and would seriously support is a tax on a bigger variety of outdoor apparel and gear to go towards management and conservation like the taxes we pay on ammo and firearms. More investment is certainly needed from all these new “non-consumptive” users.


I agree on a new tax. It's long overdue.

Millions of acres going hand in hand with protection is radically different than saying size it what makes them special. The size argument you made is inconsistent with the Act and feeds the resistance to designations. I hope you are willing to admit how such claims you used in your previous post is part of the current yo-yo cycle. It's an inescapable observation as it's been brought up on this very thread and the counter argument holds legitimate weight.

We clearly diverge on acceptance of the current model. As I said before, there is a difference between individuals seeking out these places on their own as an understandable part of their franchise of public lands. That is the basal usage that will always exist and likely grow on its own. But the additional level of recruitment can be debated and affected. We don't have to rely upon commercial enterprise for conservation (at least the initial designation) but we currently do to a large extent. Getting past that means an honest accounting and not simply writing it off as inevitable. I believe that's necessary if we hope to preserve certain characteristics of the places we conserve. I believe the writing is on the wall across such places that if we don't do so soon that we'll loose certain experiences (for the average visitor who goes past the front country) for generations to come. More and more parks are going to reservations because of outsized demand and to think our monuments are immune, especially with spill over effect in Utah, is to miss an important opportunity that IMHO is paramount to the broad goal of protection.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong over time but the current trajectory (just see reporting on impacts to BENM since Obama's proclamation) isn't a indication of that likelihood.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

You know, the common theme I see with this thread is that everyone seems to agree on one point. We dont want to see the land ruined by over use and for that I am glad.

I havent spent much time in BENM so I cant say much about it but I have spent my entire life in GSENM and dont want to see the land ruined by too much traffic, litter, and mining. And I want to keep the opportunity for solitude in this area that I so desperately seek in my busy life. 

There is a reason people are so passionate about these areas because they hold a certain magic that is hard to describe unless you've experienced it yourself.

I have never been a fan of Sierra Club or SUWA, but I am starting to feel more compassion toward their cause (not so much their organizations though). When we take a 10,000' overview the issue is plain as day. But when we are at ground level, sometimes its hard to see the entire picture. But I would encourage you to find common ground on the topic because I think we have more in common once politics are ignored (easier said than done). 

As an ex-scoutmaster and father, it has been vitally important to me to teach proper stewardship and respect for our lands. I hope that although we may not agree on the methodology of protection, that we can all agree that protecting our lands is important and that everyone should be teaching these principles to their children, grandchildren, and friends. 

I genuinely dont want to see a yo-yo perpetuated throughout administrations on this topic and hope that Trump's actions arent a glimpse into future of politics regarding land use and protection. Not so much because he was right or wrong, but because it creates a perpetual limbo status that nobody wants.

Although I am still relatively young, I already find myself reflecting on the "good ol days" and find change to be harder and harder as I get older. Sometimes it is good to leave things as is, sometimes change is good. I just hope that the change we advocate for with land usage is beneficial for generations to come.


----------



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

backcountry said:


> I agree on a new tax. It's long overdue.
> 
> Millions of acres going hand in hand with protection is radically different than saying size it what makes them special. The size argument you made is inconsistent with the Act and feeds the resistance to designations. I hope you are willing to admit how such claims you used in your previous post is part of the current yo-yo cycle. It's an inescapable observation as it's been brought up on this very thread and the counter argument holds legitimate weight.
> 
> ...


Should I have said “what makes them special to me”? I mean we are at a sort of semantics argument on that part. The fact the monuments are so large and vast is what makes them unique and special to me. And the fact those landscapes are protected by designation. I didn’t say that was the actual reasoning for the designation. Now people like Mike Lee should be doing all they can to legislate policy and funding on the monuments to make them a success. Instead people like himself will just continue to undermine the idea and existence of public lands or monuments.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Bax,

I hope the shared passion of place and the commons is self-evident. 

My criticisms are largely reflective of my belief that we should shine the light as brightly on our alliances and ideas as much as we do opposition. I'm pro-monument myself I just happen to believe we've failed to investigate and mitigate the lessons of the past twenty years. 

1 Eye,

I probably wouldn't focus on the size issue if the trend of huge monuments wasn't so obvious over time. I think it's a positive feedback cycle that as more people vocalize what you have, and it's a common enough refrain, that president's start to feed that desire. We both know that trend is in stark contrast to political opposition which itself feeds a different base, fundraising for their special interest groups, etc.

I don't support Mike Lee but there are multiple philosophies for governance by senators. I tend to respect his general approach that the role is meant to be advisory not consensus based. It's fair to say he wasn't elected to go along with many of these policies. If we don't like his ideology than it becomes paramount to elect someone else, which I know you tirelessly advocate. Unfortunately for us he's likely to be re-elected especially as the redesignation (and expansion) of BENM just played into his fundraising and campaigning advantage. 

And that doesn't even begin to account for the strong possibility who could win the 2024 general election and just downsize these monuments once again. Requesting the courts pause the lawsuits make that a very possible outcome. The entire episode is a debacle in my opinion and is evidence of why I no longer support the current strategy and oppositional structure of land management advocacy. I'm glad the original boundaries of GSENM have been reclaimed but I think it's a short term victory and lacks a certain wisdom in regards to our current dilemma. I personally keep coming back to the question of "at what cost?" and I don't think we fully grasp the implications of these political moves. Hopefully I'm wrong as a Sagebrush Rebellion redux coupled with our modern hyper negative partisanship doesn't bode well for anyone.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Utah AG challenging order over Bears Ears, Grand Staircase National Monuments


The State of Utah is gearing up to file a lawsuit to challenge President Joe Biden's executive orders to expand the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. On Thursday, the Utah Attorney General’s Office issued a public notification that they're looking to hire outside...




kutv.com





Not shocked Lyman is on board. The guy seems to love to spend tax payer money on lawsuits that seem to go nowhere.

They would be idiotic to go after GSENM. They might have friendly ears for BENM given the statements by Roberts that Vanilla recently highlighted. But how many years and millions of our dollars are they going to spend to ironically seek an activist judicial ruling? Which is ultimately a rational criticism Roberts created given his unsubtle cues to stakeholders wanting to fight monument size. 

Its a real shame that the AG doesn't instead put his energies into legal issues that are 100% in his wheelhouse. I think we all know Reyes has been auditioning for the national stage for years and this is just another opportunity to engage in the wedge and culture war issues that define our time.

The **** yo-yo was predictable. And yes that's a finger pointing at the stakeholders on the left for not developing better, broad based buy-in throughout the West. Both sides are adding fuel to a fire we may not be able to manage.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

backcountry said:


> Both sides are adding fuel to a fire we may not be able to manage.


Unfortunately, that seems to be the chief goal in politics anymore.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Utah AG challenging order over Bears Ears, Grand Staircase National Monuments
> 
> 
> The State of Utah is gearing up to file a lawsuit to challenge President Joe Biden's executive orders to expand the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. On Thursday, the Utah Attorney General’s Office issued a public notification that they're looking to hire outside...
> ...


That's another false equivalency. Irritating when people say both sides are equally at fault. Trump caused the problem when he illegally tried to reduce the monuments. He created the "yo-yo". Period. Obama designated it legally under the Antiquities Act, Biden legally restored it. Now that dull tool Reyes vows to waste our tax dollars in (another) display of partisanship. I emailed him today to let him know what a POS he is.



TheOtherJeff said:


> Unfortunately, that seems to be the chief goal in politics anymore.


I disagree. Democrats are trying to protect our public lands. Republicans want to sell them off so they can be exploited.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

paddler said:


> Trump caused the problem when he illegally tried to reduce the monuments. He created the "yo-yo".


Now, at the end of the epoch, this may be proven to be true (or not), but can there be any doubt about the continued Yo-Yo effect when one reads this?









A Majority Of Republican Voters Actively Want Trump To Run For President Again


Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup. By all appearances, former President Donald Trump is planning to run for president again in 2024. He is tra…




fivethirtyeight.com





Now, the nation and our democracy may have bigger problems than monuments if this were to occur, but the Biden administration did nothing to end the yo-yo by their action and it will likely continue until the court weighs in definitively. 

All the partisan cheerleading in the world on either side is not going to change that.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Now, at the end of the epoch, this may be proven to be true (or not), but can there be any doubt about the continued Yo-Yo effect when one reads this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, the Biden administration was under no obligation to do anything to "end the yo-yo". Another false equivalence. Trump did what he did to try to erase Obama's legacy. It was a petty, petulant act by a pathological narcissist. The fact that Republicans now overwhelmingly support that POS speaks volumes about their character, critical thinking skills and honesty.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

LET'S GO BRANDON!


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

bowgy said:


> LET'S GO BRANDON!


You as well. And the horse you rode in on. It appears you may belong to the group I referenced above.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Okay then ... let's go bowgy..... nawh... doesn't have the same feel, but then again I didn't trash the US economy or the 1st and 2nd amendments and I am not trying to turn the USA into a communist / socialist country.
The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was made to be a slap in the face to Utah for Clinton coming in 3rd in the election after Ross Perot, then a second slap in the face by doing it in Arizona and not Utah, he has never been to the GSENM and never will, Obama made the BENM he has never been there and never will, President Trump reduced the size of both, he didn't eliminate them, was it too much? Was it not enough? He has never been to either and never will. Did he do it out of spite, possibly. I won't argue that. Joe returned them to the original size, did he do it out of spite? Definitely. He has never been to either and never will, but at least when they were smaller and Trump was president you could afford to go see them no matter the size. None of them really care about them they are just playing politics.

Something I found interesting, when they made the GSENM I was doing some contract work for the BLM, they didn't know what to do with the new monument and how to run it. They had me remove a communications tower because you could see it from the highway going through the monument and I had to install the antennas in locations less conspicuous. Now there is a tower there that is 5 times the foot print and taller than the one I removed. Love the government waste of money, at least they spent some of it on me.


----------



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

bowgy said:


> Okay then ... let's go bowgy..... nawh... doesn't have the same feel, but then again I didn't trash the US economy or the 1st and 2nd amendments and I am not trying to turn the USA into a communist / socialist country.
> The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was made to be a slap in the face to Utah for Clinton coming in 3rd in the election after Ross Perot, then a second slap in the face by doing it in Arizona and not Utah, he has never been to the GSENM and never will, Obama made the BENM he has never been there and never will, President Trump reduced the size of both, he didn't eliminate them, was it too much? Was it not enough? He has never been to either and never will. Did he do it out of spite, possibly. I won't argue that. Joe returned them to the original size, did he do it out of spite? Definitely. He has never been to either and never will, but at least when they were smaller and Trump was president you could afford to go see them no matter the size. None of them really care about them they are just playing politics.
> 
> Something I found interesting, when they made the GSENM I was doing some contract work for the BLM, they didn't know what to do with the new monument and how to run it. They had me remove a communications tower because you could see it from the highway going through the monument and I had to install the antennas in locations less conspicuous. Now there is a tower there that is 5 times the foot print and taller than the one I removed. Love the government waste of money, at least they spent some of it on me.


Truly, some of you show just how easily swayed and brainwashed dumb the American public is lol. Yeah, the 1st and 2nd amendment are sure threatened (eye roll) and we’re right on the edge of communism(even bigger eye roll) Get outside your political bubble of thought. You can say whatever you want, it comes with consequences. Sorry if there are consequences to going around being an ignorant ******* these days. And why don’t you show me all the gun legislation being passed? Oh there’s none and like always it’s become a non-issue when there is full power to pass such legislation? What a surprise.

As for your Bears Ears nonsense, I’ll say again, both county councils voted to ask Biden to do exactly what he did a year ago. It’s a b**** when Native Americans get a voice in something and aren’t gerrymandered out of having any input isn’t it? I haven’t been to many places a day in my life and never will, that doesn’t mean I don’t advocate for greater long term protections of wildlife and wild places, even in places I’ll never be.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Goes both ways Deer-1
The left is just as "brainwashed".
The whole thing was pure political right from the start. Now it's like a ping pong ball.

There is always 3 sides to every story.
The truth side is always somewhere in the middle.
I sooo glad you are so much smarter than everyone else.


----------



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

2full said:


> Goes both ways Deer-1
> The left is just as "brainwashed".
> The whole thing was pure political right from the start. Now it's like a ping pong ball.
> There is always 3 sides to every story.
> ...


I agree with this. The left is very brainwashed, as is the right. No one has taken a single gun from anyone, and yet the 2nd amendment? It’s been thrown in the trash. I don’t support some things Biden has done. I do support others, including this, where he listened to the Native American local voices who ran off of, won elections on the issue, and ask it be restored. Now. Let’s fund the monuments, and make them a success.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Just trolling the trolls and it worked

I am not the one who is ignorant if you can't see what they want to do. They have even said it in public. Didn't mean to say it was in the trash just that they want it to be.

Glad you found one thing that you like that Joe has done, I haven't found one yet.

Ooops sorry too political, I will drop this now. Have a great day everyone and happy hunting and fishing.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

2full said:


> Goes both ways Deer-1
> The left is just as "brainwashed".
> The whole thing was pure political right from the start. Now it's like a ping pong ball.
> 
> ...


This is another false equivalency. When one side believes in "alternative facts", there is no middle. As regards the public land issue, the "left" is so brainwashed they want to preserve them in perpetuity. How dumb is that? Is there some kind of middle ground between Trump's 30,000 lies while in office along with him continuing to push his Big Lie, and the fact that the 2020 election was safe and secure? Do tell.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> I agree with this. The left is very brainwashed, as is the right. No one has taken a single gun from anyone, and yet the 2nd amendment? It’s been thrown in the trash. I don’t support some things Biden has done. I do support others, including this, where he listened to the Native American local voices who ran off of, won elections on the issue, and ask it be restored. Now. Let’s fund the monuments, and make them a success.


Do you really believe the 2nd Amendment has been thrown in the trash? Are you sure about that? Please explain, as I'm confused.


bowgy said:


> Just trolling the trolls and it worked
> 
> I am not the one who is ignorant if you can't see what they want to do. They have even said it in public. Didn't mean to say it was in the trash just that they want it to be.
> 
> ...


Yes, you are a troll. Or worse, if you still support taco bowl connoisseur in Florida, the insurrectionist, the only president in history to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. If you do, then yes, you're worse. I, on the other hand, am an American:



https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/leonard-pitts-my-people-are-americans/article_8280b452-32a3-11ec-a9e6-a378ec82f96c.html


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

paddler said:


> This is another false equivalency. When one side believes in "alternative facts", there is no middle. As regards the public land issue, the "left" is so brainwashed they want to preserve them in perpetuity. How dumb is that? Is there some kind of middle ground between Trump's 30,000 lies while in office along with him continuing to push his Big Lie, and the fact that the 2020 election was safe and secure? Do tell.
> 
> 
> Do you really believe the 2nd Amendment has been thrown in the trash? Are you sure about that? Please explain, as I'm confused.
> ...


This is why I ignore everything you post. 
I have tried to stay out of this thread. 
I will block this one and not waste my time with your biased, arrogant, rude posts. 

Have a good day !! 😁


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Paddler, switch to decaf.

Good grief.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry, just calling it like I see it. Only on my fourth cup. Wait till I get going.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Ha

uh....top of the page


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And here I thought political attacks were against forum rules? Good to know for future reference when I feel like going off.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> And here I thought political attacks were against forum rules? Good to know for future reference when I feel like going off.


I don't think political attacks are against the Forum rules as long as the context is outdoor related and you're not using fowl language. Personal attacks are not allowed.

For example: I'm not allowed to call Paddler a "whiny bitch".


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> I don't think political attacks are against the Forum rules as long as the context is outdoor related and you're not using fowl language. Personal attacks are not allowed.
> 
> For example: I'm not allowed to call Paddler a "whiny bitch".


Good thing. Similarly, I'm prohibited from calling Trump supporters anti-American fascist pigs. But maybe if I tie it into an outdoor topic.

Springsteen's on Colbert right now. Refreshing, as he agrees with me.


----------



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

paddler said:


> This is another false equivalency. When one side believes in "alternative facts", there is no middle. As regards the public land issue, the "left" is so brainwashed they want to preserve them in perpetuity. How dumb is that? Is there some kind of middle ground between Trump's 30,000 lies while in office along with him continuing to push his Big Lie, and the fact that the 2020 election was safe and secure? Do tell.
> 
> 
> Do you really believe the 2nd Amendment has been thrown in the trash? Are you sure about that? Please explain, as I'm confused.
> ...


I was being sarcastic to what bowgy said. He implied the 2nd amendment had been infringed upon, and I just wanted to be snarky about how absolutely ridiculous and delusional that is if you actually believe anything has been done to the 2nd amendment since Biden took office.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I was being sarcastic to what bowgy said. He implied the 2nd amendment had been infringed upon, and I just wanted to be snarky about how absolutely ridiculous and delusional that is if you actually believe anything has been done to the 2nd amendment since Biden took office.


Yeah, that's what I thought. Some people actually believe that BS, and justify voting against their best interests because of it. Some people ain't too bright. Actually, a fair number of people. During eight years of the Obama administration there was not a single piece of legislation passed that infringed upon the right to bear arms. Yet, the NRA incessantly used the "Gubmint comin ta take your guns" scare tactic to raise money. All the while Wayne was shopping on Rodeo Drive. Some people never learned and never will. Lack of critical thinking, data analysis, overabundance of paranoia, etc, etc.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

*Goob said "
Paddler, switch to decaf.

Good grief. "*

Sshhush..... these two guys are the funniest guys on the forum, they keep me laughing. I really think they believe what they say.


----------



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

bowgy said:


> *Goob said "
> Paddler, switch to decaf.
> 
> Good grief. "*
> ...


I just hope you don’t believe the nonsense you say.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I just hope you don’t believe the nonsense you say.





PutzPaddler said:


> Yeah, that's what I thought. Some people actually believe that BS, and justify voting against their best interests because of it. Some people ain't too bright. Actually, a fair number of people. During eight years of the Obama administration there was not a single piece of legislation passed that infringed upon the right to bear arms. Yet, the NRA incessantly used the "Gubmint comin ta take your guns" scare tactic to raise money. All the while Wayne was shopping on Rodeo Drive. Some people never learned and never will. Lack of critical thinking, data analysis, overabundance of paranoia, etc, etc.


Are these fair game and related to outdoor issues? Asking for a friend…

I just need to know the ground rules so I can play by them appropriately.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Are these fair game and related to outdoor issues? Asking for a friend…
> 
> I just need to know the ground rules so I can play by them appropriately.


Surely even somebody as dense as yourself can see the connection between the outdoors and gun rights. See what I did there?

You a Trump supporter, V? Asking for a friend.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Well fellers, it looks like this thread has ran it's course and seems to be sliding down a slippery slope. I'm going to lock it down.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Dangit, this was my favorite thread.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

We can open it back up!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> We can open it back up!


No
Good job


----------

