Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante
- Thread starter Brute
- Start date
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
New member
Also interested to hear Utah members comment
Brute
Hooked
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
Hooked
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.
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
Hooked
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
Caught the Bug
That was my concern too. Not really private either, but “exclusively leased” from the gov.
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.
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
Hooked
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
https://www.blm.gov/office/kanab-field-office
Sorry for the government plug..haha
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
Last edited:
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
Hooked
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.
MTG
Caught the Bug
Oh I hadn’t read anything about this specific land either, just speaking generally. If it remains public and accessible great!
jesse3638
Hooked
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
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
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
Hooked
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
Sharkey
Word Ninja
^^ 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
Hooked
This was my next caviat...haha. Thanks for beating me to it.
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
Sharkey
Word Ninja
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.