Bear's Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante

JAGS

Hooked
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

Meme King
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

Caught the Bug
^ 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

Hooked
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
 
Last edited:

Brute

Hooked
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

Hooked
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

Administrator
Staff member
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

Word Ninja
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

Hooked
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

Administrator
Staff member
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

Administrator
Staff member
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

Hooked
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

Hooked
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

New member
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.
 
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

New member
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.
 
Top Bottom