# Greater Canyonlands National Monument



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

Anybody seen this yet?

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30941693&ni...h-new-national-monument-in-utah&s_cid=queue-3

I know there are tons of opinions on this, but I totally disagree with the approach the senators have taken. The people of the state of Utah need to be involved in this process.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

This may surprise you, based on where I stand on the "land grab" issue (hate it), but I agree with you. While I do support some type of enhanced protection in the area, totally cutting out the people in the decision making, most affected by the decision, does nothing to foster goodwill between Washington and the locals. It just makes it all the harder to achieve agreement between the differing parties for truly worthy preservation projects. 


Based on the roster of liberal "D"'s pushing this, I might suggest they are likely pandering to their leftist base.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is sad, those with a R behind their name want to sell it all and those with a D behind their name want to lock it up to where the common person can't access it.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey I've hiked some of that. You can get lost out there...die of thirst, or both. Hike the Jordan River or take up golf if ya wanna walk.

(*^$ making it a park. That area needs more roads, convenience stores, fast-food joints, a couple coal mines with 3 or 4 power plants. I'd put the nuclear waste dump on the same property as the oil shale process plant. And don't bury any of the pipelines; lay 'em on top of the ground like they do in Uintah County and Wyoming.

A railroad perhaps.

A park....good grief.


----------



## huntfishlive (Oct 22, 2013)

This has nothing to do with actually protecting "public land". This was started and is empowered by The Sierra Club doing what they do best. Several senators saw an opportunity to gain political support, advance their political agendas and gain voters by backing a popular idea. They also found an opportunity to get the upper hand by taking advantage of the now-popular executive orders. Managing land for the people has gone by the wayside. It has now become managing land to gain political support and campaign funding. Whether someone agrees that this is right or wrong, they cannot deny the truthfulness of it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> I'd put the nuclear waste dump on the same property as the oil shale process plant.


Actually, Goob, they almost have the nuclear waste dump cleaned up and the land is theoretically in the National monument study area. Maybe it will be included.

I think the oil shale is further North and it won't mess up the redrock parks any. It might screw up some fine deer and elk hunting areas though, but hey weren't you saying that Wyoming antelope get used to the oils wells quickly? Our deer and elk should be the same, right?


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

huntfishlive said:


> This has nothing to do with actually protecting "public land". This was started and is empowered by The Sierra Club doing what they do best. Several senators saw an opportunity to gain political support, advance their political agendas and gain voters by backing a popular idea. They also found an opportunity to get the upper hand by taking advantage of the now-popular executive orders. Managing land for the people has gone by the wayside. It has now become managing land to gain political support and campaign funding. Whether someone agrees that this is right or wrong, they cannot deny the truthfulness of it.


Well, I think it is about protecting public lands but otherwise I agree with you- and love it! It is a popular idea and I'm glad at least some of our nation's legislators are trying to represent the best interests of the nation! The people of Utah are totally involved! It's just that they keep voting for Senators beholden to the extractive community who espouse positions that the majority of the country disagrees with. Utahs get our say, but guess what? Becoming a citizen of San Juan County doesn't make you the owner of all that beautiful, fragile country- becoming a citizen of the USA does! Besides, who says the locals are being cut out? They have all the opportunity in the world to comment to the agencies, contact their elected officials, speak to whomever they like. Just because you lose an argument, doesn't mean you weren't heard! Over a million people visited Arches last year, 14,965 people live in all of San Juan County. Who is not listening to whom?


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

huntfishlive said:


> This has nothing to do with actually protecting "public land". This was started and is empowered by The Sierra Club doing what they do best. Several senators saw an opportunity to gain political support, advance their political agendas and gain voters by backing a popular idea.


You totally lost me on both parts of this. What is it that you believe the Sierra Club does best?

Also, am I wrong in reading a sneer into your tone when you say " Several senators saw an opportunity to gain political support, advance their political agendas and gain voters by backing a popular idea." Isn't that what Senators are supposed to do?


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

Trooper, While I understand your argument about number of visitors vs. number of residents, I would not weight the two the same. The interest that a resident has in this type of issue is on a completely different level than that of a visitor.

Side question here, How is hunting effected by this designation? Can you still hunt it?


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

rukus said:


> Side question here, How is hunting effected by this designation? Can you still hunt it?


Too early to know definitively what the rules would be (I say "would be" because this whole concept still seems pretty remote, but you never know!) Monuments differ, but I would bet the farm that hunting will continue to be allowed. Extraction and development will be out (except for grandfathered rights), grazing will probably be grandfathered in. The closer, more interesting issue is motorized traffic. My guess would be that motors will be restricted to designated roads. Which sounds like a fair compromise to me!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

While I suspect that I would personally favor more acreage designated wilderness and monument than Rep. Bishop himself would favor, I do like this approach better in coming to that end.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608006/In-Our-Opinion-Best-use-best-care.html

Based on the rhetoric coming from some parts of the "435", if Obama and a bunch of "D"s in the Senate unilaterally declared the entire greater Canyonlands a monument, some of our Southern Utah "brethren" would get worked up to a froth and may try to secede from the Union. Not good for the State and not good for some of my hunting and fishing. ;-)


----------

