PDA

View Full Version : Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante



Brute
12-05-2017, 03:28 AM
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on reducing the size of Bears Ears National Monument by 85% & Grand Staircase by 50% today...I'm especially interested in members comments that live in Utah...

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 03:49 AM
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on reducing the size of Bears Ears National Monument by 85% & Grand Staircase by 50% today...I'm especially interested in members comments that live in Utah...

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was created to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features on public land. It was NEVER intended to be used as a tool that allowed presidents to administer wholesale land grabs to further their political cause. While there are legitimate reasons to preserve specific areas within the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, the amount of land seized was unreasonable and to the point where locals and indigenous tribes were against it. Public land should remain public and in my opinion, this move is a good thing.

GraniteCrystal
12-05-2017, 03:49 AM
Also interested to hear Utah members comment

Brute
12-05-2017, 03:59 AM
The Antiquities Act of 1906 was created to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features on public land. It was NEVER intended to be used as a tool that allowed presidents to administer wholesale land grabs to further their political cause. While there are legitimate reasons to preserve specific areas within the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase, the amount of land seized was unreasonable and to the point where locals and indigenous tribes were against it. Public land should remain public and in my opinion, this move is a good thing.

Will the land remain public, or will it be exploited to benefit only a few who are granted permits for mineral/resource exploration and thus become private land in use?...

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 04:02 AM
Will the land remain public, or will it be exploited to benefit only a few who are granted permits for mineral/resource exploration and thus become private land in use?...

As I had read it, the land would remain PUBLIC.

HighwayTrout
12-05-2017, 04:08 AM
All these companies *cough* cough* Patagonia and other ultra lib leaning are crying foul over this “anti public land” measure.

My question is. What was truly public of bears ear or grand stair case?
I remember most of both of these locations are hours upon hours of driving on two lanes of black top with countless “this is a national monument stay on dedicated roads” signs.

JAGS
12-05-2017, 04:18 AM
As I had read it, the land would remain PUBLIC.

I have not read the update. Hope you are right. That said, money grabbing corps/industries have a way of making things happen. I'm not holding my breathe in it ALL staying "public" too long, should this actually go through.

MTG
12-05-2017, 04:26 AM
Will the land remain public, or will it be exploited to benefit only a few who are granted permits for mineral/resource exploration and thus become private land in use?...

That was my concern too. Not really private either, but “exclusively leased” from the gov.

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 04:28 AM
I have not read the update. Hope you are right. That said, money grabbing corps/industries have a way of making things happen. I'm not holding my breathe in it ALL staying "public" too long, should this actually go through.

I'd need for you to point out a specific example of where this has actually occurred for me to even take this seriously. Land use is something I am passionate about and in my lifetime, I have YET to see ANY entity other than the government seize massive swaths of land and typically, in the name of preservation. There's an area just south of the Kelso Sand Dunes called the Granite Mountains and after it was made a "National Wilderness Area" back in the 90's, parts of it were made so that you can't even walk on it. Public land needs to be protected FOR the people - not FROM the people.

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 04:34 AM
That was my concern too. Not really private either, but “exclusively leased” from the gov.

Outside of the dramatic rhetoric being published in the New York Times or the like, I have yet to see any evidence of ANY private entity that has sought out to exclusively lease any of this land prior to it becoming a national monument or here after. The most they can claim is that they're "at risk" and would "possibly" be opened to exploitation.

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 04:41 AM
The land is administered by the BLM. Public lands can be used for many things logging, drilling, mining, (which media has been focusing), grazing, recreation, etc. All of these have an extensive process which requires public hearing (NEPA process). I'd assume the BLM will temporarily implement the land management strategies previously utilized prior to this area being identified as a monument until new EIS can be completed. For more information I'd contact the BLM Kanab Field Office.

https://www.blm.gov/office/kanab-field-office

Sorry for the government plug..haha

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 04:49 AM
The land is administered by the BLM. Public lands can be used for many things logging, drilling, mining, (which media has been focusing), grazing, recreation, etc. All of these have an extensive process which requires public hearing (NEPA process). I'd assume the BLM will temporarily implement the land management strategies previously utilized prior to this area being identified as a monument. For more information I'd contact the BLM Kanab Field Office.

https://www.blm.gov/office/kanab-field-office

Sorry for the government plug..haha

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

What I love about Nevada is that so much of it is controlled by the BLM. This has allowed so much of its land to remain open to the public while allowing ranchers to have their cattle graze on the same land and allow miners to extract minerals from its soil. We all use the same roads and trails and when you get to pavement, all that the BLM asks that you close the gate behind you. This as opposed to National Monuments that prohibit and restrict access to roads that have existed well before there was an Antiquities Act.

JAGS
12-05-2017, 04:53 AM
I'd need for you to point out a specific example of where this has actually occurred for me to even take this seriously. Land use is something I am passionate about and in my lifetime, I have YET to see ANY entity other than the government seize massive swaths of land and typically, in the name of preservation. There's an area just south of the Kelso Sand Dunes called the Granite Mountains and after it was made a "National Wilderness Area" back in the 90's, parts of it were made so that you can't even walk on it. Public land needs to be protected FOR the people - not FROM the people.

I'm not arguing with you on your points. And being able to see the beauty this country has to offer is important. Couldn't agree with you more there. With so many yahoo's out there, the for and from is a little gray though. Like those cub scout leaders tipping rocks, people tagging, etc etc.

But, hypothetically, if the land is "given back" then it could just be re-sold, leased or used by someone else.

Jesse touches on that a little and seems there is at least a bit of process. Time will tell as it's really all a bunch of what-ifs at this point.



The land is administered by the BLM. Public lands can be used for many things logging, drilling, mining, (which media has been focusing), grazing, recreation, etc. All of these have an extensive process which requires public hearing (NEPA process). I'd assume the BLM will temporarily implement the land management strategies previously utilized prior to this area being identified as a monument. For more information I'd contact the BLM Kanab Field Office.

https://www.blm.gov/office/kanab-field-office

Sorry for the government plug..haha

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

MTG
12-05-2017, 04:54 AM
Outside of the dramatic rhetoric being published in the New York Times or the like, I have yet to see any evidence of ANY private entity that has sought out to exclusively lease any of this land prior to it becoming a national monument or here after. The most they can claim is that they're "at risk" and would "possibly" be opened to exploitation.

Oh I hadn’t read anything about this specific land either, just speaking generally. If it remains public and accessible great!

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 04:57 AM
Personal opinion: I'm not a geologist, archiologist, forester, or grazing specialist. Looking at the landscape I don't see prime logging country so that's probably out. Without taking soil samples, excavating, and prospecting not sure what would be mined. Studying the history could give some clues too. News media is trying to paint a picture of pristeen wilderness which is about to be devastated by large corporations. To me it seems this will open up grazing, land use for cultural purposes, and hunting. OHV use will still be limited as they won't just let new trails be blazed all I've the landscape so I won't see it being turned into an open area (like Johnson and Stoddard Vally's). Both conservationists and large corporations have more powerful lawyers than the government in most cases. Land use issues will be litigated for years. Either way the BLM will end up being sued. All land management agencies typical are.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 04:59 AM
I'm not arguing with you on your points. And being able to see the beauty this country has to offer is important. Couldn't agree with you more there. With so many yahoo's out there, the for and from is a little gray though. Like those cub scout leaders tipping rocks, people tagging, etc etc.

But, hypothetically, if the land is "given back" then it could just be re-sold, leased or used by someone else.

Jesse touches on that a little and seems there is at least a bit of process. Time will tell as it's really all a bunch of what-ifs at this point.

It sucks to no fuckin end that there are yahoos out there who destroy the beauty this country has to offer. You know this absolutely kills me and to the point where I don't tell people where a lot of the places we visit are. That being said, I would rather take my chances with the yahoos then to have the government seize all of it and prevent me from visiting them too. Unfortunately, freedom for ALL includes the fuckards of this world.

The land is "given back" to the BLM. In spite of what the New York Times and the like will have you believe, there is no simple reselling or leasing of the land as Jesse pointed out.

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 05:09 AM
I'm not arguing with you on your points. And being able to see the beauty this country has to offer is important. Couldn't agree with you more there. With so many yahoo's out there, the for and from is a little gray though. Like those cub scout leaders tipping rocks, people tagging, etc etc.

But, hypothetically, if the land is "given back" then it could just be re-sold, leased or used by someone else.

Jesse touches on that a little and seems there is at least a bit of process. Time will tell as it's really all a bunch of what-ifs at this point.
You are right that yahoos will be yahoos. Monument, National Park, Public, or private lands. It doesn't matter just the punishment which comes to the few who are caught depending on land designation. Also outside of Liberal So-Cal people generally have a different take on things and a little more respect.

The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) mandates that public solicitation occur prior to changing land designation ie...commercial mining, renewable energy production, recreation route designation, etc. Really only presidential proclamation and military use tend to overlook this step. Look at the 29 palms base expansion. Only time I've seen OHV and conservation lobbiests working together and they still lost. No using JV August 1-31 2018.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

Sharkey
12-05-2017, 05:09 AM
What I love about Nevada is that so much of it is controlled by the BLM. This has allowed so much of its land to remain open to the public while allowing ranchers to have their cattle graze on the same land and allow miners to extract minerals from its soil. We all use the same roads and trails and when you get to pavement, all that the BLM asks that you close the gate behind you. This as opposed to National Monuments that prohibit and restrict access to roads that have existed well before there was an Antiquities Act.

^^ This. I would hate to see the BLM controlled land in Nevada come under the ownership and full control of the state. If it did, there would inevitably be large land sales to private ranchers and this state would end up looking like Texas. No Effing Thanks!

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 05:13 AM
^^ This. I would hate to see the BLM controlled land in Nevada come under the ownership and full control of the state. If it did, there would inevitably be large land sales to private ranchers and this state would end up looking like Texas. No Effing Thanks!
This was my next caviat...haha. Thanks for beating me to it.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

Sharkey
12-05-2017, 05:14 AM
Most of the “exclusive leases” I see from the federal government are actually conservation easements. For a while they were offering pretty good money to tie up the use and development of land. I am dealing with one right now that is a 26 year conservation easement on about 3000 acres. For all intents and purposes, it renders the land unusable for a quarter of a century.

JAGS
12-05-2017, 05:15 AM
It sucks to no fuckin end that there are yahoos out there who destroy the beauty this country has to offer. You know this absolutely kills me and to the point where I don't tell people where a lot of the places we visit are. That being said, I would rather take my chances with the yahoos then to have the government seize all of it and prevent me from visiting them too. Unfortunately, freedom for ALL includes the fuckards of this world.

The land is "given back" to the BLM. In spite of what the New York Times and the like will have you believe, there is no simple reselling or leasing of the land as Jesse pointed out.

I haven't read the NYT either for that matter. [emoji33]

I know land issues/abuses eat at you. I could only hope all folks would have the some good intentions as you.


Both conservationists and large corporations have more powerful lawyers than the government in most cases. Land use issues will be litigated for years. Either way the BLM will end up being sued. All land management agencies typical are.

Boy ain't that the truth!!

WJCO
12-05-2017, 05:20 AM
Public land needs to be protected FOR the people - not FROM the people.

^ This is the thesis statement of the whole issue. I hope this remains the case for this land.

I have seen the headlines today but haven't had time to read the articles. Just based on the headlines, it seems like the right and left trying to buttfuck each other rather than protect the people of this great nation. Time will tell.

SDG
12-05-2017, 08:32 AM
^ This is the thesis statement of the whole issue. I hope this remains the case for this land.

I have seen the headlines today but haven't had time to read the articles. Just based on the headlines, it seems like the right and left trying to buttfuck each other rather than protect the people of this great nation. Time will tell.
I had a bit of time to read a little...

Enviros claim mining, timber, oil, blah blah... the closest claim is there appears to be coal deposits near escalante... and we all know how booming the coal industry is in the US LOL... especially out in BFE...

The Indians want it for its historic value...

Seems like ranchers want it for grazing, may be open for some other light use activities as well... off road parks, etc NOT being one of them.

We shall see.

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 05:17 PM
I had a bit of time to read a little...

Enviros claim mining, timber, oil, blah blah... the closest claim is there appears to be coal deposits near escalante... and we all know how booming the coal industry is in the US LOL... especially out in BFE...

The Indians want it for its historic value...

Seems like ranchers want it for grazing, may be open for some other light use activities as well... off road parks, etc NOT being one of them.

We shall see.
Yeah that's what I saw as well. Last I checked there is not much of a market for Juniper trees. Firewood cutter are about the only ones who use it. Those types of industries are just being used to try and push their agenda being the bad connotation associated with them. The other activity I could see would be hunting and fishing (if there is fishing). I don't believe you can hunt in a designated monument. I may be wrong though.

Edit: Depending on the monument you can hunt.

Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=73415)

Brute
12-05-2017, 07:10 PM
Outside of the dramatic rhetoric being published in the New York Times or the like, I have yet to see any evidence of ANY private entity that has sought out to exclusively lease any of this land prior to it becoming a national monument or here after. The most they can claim is that they're "at risk" and would "possibly" be opened to exploitation.

I do agree with you on one point...I am a believer in smaller federal government and allowing individual states to determine the future of their land use...but I generally distrust that decisions made at both the state and federal level will be wise ones that benefit all of the citizenry of those particular states...I have personally seen special interest groups with powerful lobbys that have influenced and even change existing laws to benefit a relatively small group financially.

While we may not be aware of any entities that have designs of use commercially for these areas at this time, trust me...there are some who eventually will. At some point, when it is seen as cost effective to seek out resource exploration, these permits will be applied for...and most likely granted. Only time will tell if these decisions benefit the residents of Utah, and at what cost.

To my point of general distrust of government decisions to protect land use for the benefit of all, I offer the mining project in the Bristol Bay Area of Alaska. This watershed is home to the single largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, worth several hundred millions dollars of revenue for the local population. The watershed was previously protected by the federal govt via the EPA to ban any large scale mining in the area, based upon residents not in favor of the project and scientific studies showing that the proposed "lake of acid" required to store the acid used in processing the gold & copper ore could potentially destroy permanently the river systems home to the salmon, not to mention all the other wildlife effected by a catastrophic failure. The new administration has appointed a new head of the EPA, and immediately removed this protection and will allow the permit application to proceed of the Pebble Group to construct the single largest open pit mine in the world for gold & copper...a Canadian company...what possibly could go wrong?

Land use issues are complicated...on one hand, I too believe that lands should remain open to public use...but sometimes misguided individuals make decisions that are not in the best interest of everyone....and some decisions have a permanent impact to the land that may not be reversible. On the other hand, I also strongly believe in being more self reliant in energy resource...the trick is to find the balance that achieves both of these goals.

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 07:18 PM
I do agree with you on one point...I am a believer in smaller federal government and allowing individual states to determine the future of their land use...but I generally distrust that decisions made at both the state and federal level will be wise ones that benefit all of the citizenry of those particular states...I have personally seen special interest groups with powerful lobbys that have influenced and even change existing laws to benefit a relatively small group financially.

While we may not be aware of any entities that have designs of use commercially for these areas at this time, trust me...there are some who eventually will. At some point, when it is seen as cost effective to seek out resource exploration, these permits will be applied for...and most likely granted. Only time will tell if these decisions benefit the residents of Utah, and at what cost.

To my point of general distrust of government decisions to protect land use for the benefit of all, I offer the mining project in the Bristol Bay Area of Alaska. This watershed is home to the single largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, worth several hundred millions dollars of revenue for the local population. The watershed was previously protected by the federal govt via the EPA to ban any large scale mining in the area, based upon residents not in favor of the project and scientific studies showing that the proposed "lake of acid" required to store the acid used in processing the gold & copper ore could potentially destroy permanently the river systems home to the salmon, not to mention all the other wildlife effected by a catastrophic failure. The new administration has appointed a new head of the EPA, and immediately removed this protection and will allow the permit application to proceed of the Pebble Group to construct the single largest open pit mine in the world for gold & copper...a Canadian company...what possibly could go wrong?

Land use issues are complicated...on one hand, I too believe that lands should remain open to public use...but sometimes misguided individuals make decisions that are not in the best interest of everyone....and some decisions have a permanent impact to the land that may not be reversible. On the other hand, I also strongly believe in being more self reliant in energy resource...the trick is to find the balance that achieves both of these goals.

You're absolutely right. I've personally seen "Stewards of the Land" try and make decisions based off of personal opinions and agendas. It really is a slippery slope and too many people/groups involved has a similar affect as decisions be affected by special interest lobbyists on small groups.

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 07:36 PM
I do agree with you on one point...I am a believer in smaller federal government and allowing individual states to determine the future of their land use...but I generally distrust that decisions made at both the state and federal level will be wise ones that benefit all of the citizenry of those particular states...I have personally seen special interest groups with powerful lobbys that have influenced and even change existing laws to benefit a relatively small group financially.

While we may not be aware of any entities that have designs of use commercially for these areas at this time, trust me...there are some who eventually will. At some point, when it is seen as cost effective to seek out resource exploration, these permits will be applied for...and most likely granted. Only time will tell if these decisions benefit the residents of Utah, and at what cost.

To my point of general distrust of government decisions to protect land use for the benefit of all, I offer the mining project in the Bristol Bay Area of Alaska. This watershed is home to the single largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, worth several hundred millions dollars of revenue for the local population. The watershed was previously protected by the federal govt via the EPA to ban any large scale mining in the area, based upon residents not in favor of the project and scientific studies showing that the proposed "lake of acid" required to store the acid used in processing the gold & copper ore could potentially destroy permanently the river systems home to the salmon, not to mention all the other wildlife effected by a catastrophic failure. The new administration has appointed a new head of the EPA, and immediately removed this protection and will allow the permit application to proceed of the Pebble Group to construct the single largest open pit mine in the world for gold & copper...a Canadian company...what possibly could go wrong?

Land use issues are complicated...on one hand, I too believe that lands should remain open to public use...but sometimes misguided individuals make decisions that are not in the best interest of everyone....and some decisions have a permanent impact to the land that may not be reversible. On the other hand, I also strongly believe in being more self reliant in energy resource...the trick is to find the balance that achieves both of these goals.

Funny thing is, I actually WANT the federal government to maintain control of public lands but through the BLM - NOT through National Monuments. I can't speak for Alaska or what goes on in the waters surrounding it but what I can tell you is that I've been fortunate enough to have explored pretty much everything west of the Rockies since the 1970's. During that time, I have seen an ungodly amount of land seized and the use of them restricted and ALL of at the hands of the government. I have not seen a single instance where vast swaths of public land had been restricted due to a corporation. Of course, that has just been my personal experience.

Here in Nevada, Gold Buttes was commandeered at the same time as the Bears Ears. This is a beautiful area in southern Nevada and it disappointed me to no end that so much of it was made into a National Monument. This is not to say that there isn't a value to protecting parts of it but the amount of land grabbed seemed unreasonable or at least to me anyway. I am glad to hear this monument is under review as well.

Sharkey
12-05-2017, 08:15 PM
Funny thing is, I actually WANT the federal government to maintain control of public lands but through the BLM - NOT through National Monuments. I can't speak for Alaska or what goes on in the waters surrounding it but what I can tell you is that I've been fortunate enough to have explored pretty much everything west of the Rockies since the 1970's. During that time, I have seen an ungodly amount of land seized and the use of them restricted and ALL of at the hands of the government. I have not seen a single instance where vast swaths of public land had been restricted due to a corporation. Of course, that has just been my personal experience.

Here in Nevada, Gold Buttes was commandeered at the same time as the Bears Ears. This is a beautiful area in southern Nevada and it disappointed me to no end that so much of it was made into a National Monument. This is not to say that there isn't a value to protecting parts of it but the amount of land grabbed seemed unreasonable or at least to me anyway. I am glad to hear this monument is under review as well.

I'm in the same camp as you on this. On balance, I believe the BLM does a pretty damn good job and I shudder at the thought of federal public lands in Nevada becoming truly state owned land.

Brute
12-05-2017, 08:29 PM
Funny thing is, I actually WANT the federal government to maintain control of public lands but through the BLM - NOT through National Monuments. I can't speak for Alaska or what goes on in the waters surrounding it but what I can tell you is that I've been fortunate enough to have explored pretty much everything west of the Rockies since the 1970's. During that time, I have seen an ungodly amount of land seized and the use of them restricted and ALL of at the hands of the government. I have not seen a single instance where vast swaths of public land had been restricted due to a corporation. Of course, that has just been my personal experience.

Here in Nevada, Gold Buttes was commandeered at the same time as the Bears Ears. This is a beautiful area in southern Nevada and it disappointed me to no end that so much of it was made into a National Monument. This is not to say that there isn't a value to protecting parts of it but the amount of land grabbed seemed unreasonable or at least to me anyway. I am glad to hear this monument is under review as well.

So who has jurisdiction over the lands that are no longer Monument Land in Utah?...the State of Utah, or the federal govt?

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 08:44 PM
So who has jurisdiction over the lands that are no longer Monument Land in Utah?...the State of Utah, or the federal govt?

To the best of my knowledge, the land was BLM prior to becoming a National Monument. If what's going on in Utah is anything like the Gold Buttes here in Nevada, it would go back to the BLM. That would be the feds.

wayoflife
12-05-2017, 08:47 PM
I'm in the same camp as you on this. On balance, I believe the BLM does a pretty damn good job and I shudder at the thought of federal public lands in Nevada becoming truly state owned land.

It's gotta be a tough job for them and in places like Moab, they've gotten militant enough to piss me off but I'd rather deal with that than to not have access at all. Here in Nevada, I think they're doing a great job.

Brute
12-05-2017, 08:47 PM
To the best of my knowledge, the land was BLM prior to becoming a National Monument. If what's going on in Utah is anything like the Gold Buttes here in Nevada, it would go back to the BLM. That would be the feds.

I'd be okay with that...

jesse3638
12-05-2017, 09:12 PM
So who has jurisdiction over the lands that are no longer Monument Land in Utah?...the State of Utah, or the federal govt?


To the best of my knowledge, the land was BLM prior to becoming a National Monument. If what's going on in Utah is anything like the Gold Buttes here in Nevada, it would go back to the BLM. That would be the feds.

The Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument was/is still under administration by the BLM. When it was identified as a monument the BLM administered it differently than had it remained"open". I'm sure the lands which will be removed from the Monument boundry will be administered as the lands currently are adjacent to the old boundry. That is how the Santa Rosa Monument is administered her in the San Jacinto mountains. As for the Bears Ears I believe it was jointly administered by the USFS and BLM. The USFS was the lead agency though. I have not seen any press releases from either agency with regards to the reduction of these areas.

RioGrandeJK
02-28-2018, 06:33 PM
Here's my take on it. I work as a forester and manage both public and private land for a variety of things such as timber, wildlife habitat, reducing wildland fuels and even aesthetics. (side note: my wife works for NPS so I have some of the inside scoop) Not a tree hugger but I am an advocate for and take pride in responsible land management. In the past I have also worked as an environmental tech/wetland delineator on natural gas projects. That being said, I have insight into both worlds. For as much lip service the gas and mining industry gives to environmental responsibility, I have yet to see it backed up with action. The almighty dollar reigns supreme over any environmental consideration and the result will ultimately be left on us, the tax payers, in the form of environmental remediation (i.e. Superfund and Brownfield sites) and negatively impacted water supplies. It appears to me that current administration (whether you love 'em or hate 'em - don't care) has done this reduction to remove the environmental and cultural protections afforded by Monument designation to achieve what Eddie mentioned previously about livestock, cater to special interest groups and greater public access but to also allow for streamlined gas exploration and extraction permitting. Ultimately the resource - whether cultural or environmental - will fall victim to adverse use and all of us will be left holding the bill.

Another side note: I was called out on social media by a self proclaimed "OHV access advocate" because my take on this issue didn't fall in line with the more "extreme right" stance on the issue he was supporting. He also seemed to think Jeeps and OHVs were something only conservatives were interested in... some people are too naive for their own good.

edit: sorry for resurrecting a somewhat old post, thought i'd throw my $0.02 in.

HighwayTrout
02-28-2018, 10:08 PM
If your interested and it sounds like you are. [emoji115]

Give episode 105 of the meateater podcast a listen. House Natural Resource Committee Chairman Rob Bishop gets interviewed and talks with Steve Rinella about this. Worth a listen...

RioGrandeJK
02-28-2018, 10:33 PM
If your interested and it sounds like you are. [emoji115]

Give episode 105 of the meateater podcast a listen. House Natural Resource Committee Chairman Rob Bishop gets interviewed and talks with Steve Rinella about this. Worth a listen...

Will do, thanks. I've read Rinella's book a while back and came to appreciate his point of view.