Destruction of Nationally protected land??

[adventure_is_necessary]

I'm probably opening up a can of worms here by bringing this up, but how does everyone feel about the reduction in size to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase? Is there more to come? As Overlanders, I would think we would all oppose this change and destruction, but I could be wrong. While I don't want to get into the politics behinds this and such, I do feel the need to pick everyone's brain on this.

 

[soonersfan]

I'm probably opening up a can of worms here by bringing this up, but how does everyone feel about the reduction in size to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase? Is there more to come? As Overlanders, I would think we would all oppose this change and destruction, but I could be wrong. While I don't want to get into the politics behinds this and such, I do feel the need to pick everyone's brain on this.

Is destruction inevitable now that Utah is in charge of this land?

 

[Dirty Ape]

It seems like regardless of party those lands were deemed "public lands" for a reason in the past, shame that once you undo that status it's going to be tough to stuff it back in the bag...

 

[vegasjeepguy]

Living in a state that has over 85%of its land under Federal control might make me a little biased. I’m a small government guy and the federal government was never supposed to administer or control huge swaths of land in the states.

edit: corrected percentage to 85%.

 

[VCeXpedition]

Living in a state that has over 95% of its land under Federal control might make me a little biased. I’m a small government guy and the federal government was never supposed to administer or control huge swaths of land in the states.

What he said.

You cannot discuss this without entering politics. This is extremely polarizing. Vote Trump? Vote Obama? There's your polarity, it seems.

Those on one side think that now, immediately, Utah government will sell the land, oil companies are going to move in and begin raping the land, 5 years from now, nothing will remain.
The other side, sees less federal government control, although I believe that everything that came back, i.e. reduced land, is still under BLM control, but that may not be 100% correct.

The crux is, some of the roads are now BLM controlled, and BLM is much easier to deal with to access/develop private or state-owned lands, that can be sold or leased.

I have some solace in the fact that I can go to Moab, which is beautiful, heavily used by tourism interests, and it's still beautiful after all those years. It hasn't been raped, and Utah and the BLM have done a better-than-decent job of looking after it.

This battle seems to be far from over. I will adopt a wait-and-see attitude, but in the meantime, I have never been to Bears Ears proper, it's time for me to go.

Dan.

 

[Murphy Slaw]

Utah knows what's best for Utah.

The less Federal Gubment the better.

 

[Edward Gentle]

No matter which side of the fence does it I just don't like all these executive orders.

Right, Wrong of Indifferent, I think the states know what's best for them and the Feds should stay out of it, for the most part. Just because AZ or AL or any other state doesn't like it the decision should be with the people of Utah.

 

[billum v2.0]

The answer depends on a couple things, but primarily on if this is a personal local issue or an intellectual exercise on national policy. Followed not so closely by personal opinions on........ which government you believe manages public ground "better" and your definition of "management".
My opinion, based on painting broadly with zero skin in the game as far as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase (not local/never been there) will run head-on into local folks who face the actual fallout that comes (if it comes) from the designation change. Ditto those whose opinions on federal land management differ.

 

[vegasjeepguy]

When coastal liberals are ready to return Manhattan Island and San Francisco Bay to wildlife refuges, I will then take them seriously.

 

[RescueRangers]

Sorry if I get a bit long winded on this.


I think we sometimes forget that this is a protection issue. Going back to President Lincoln, the Federal Government has identified lands that it deemed as needing protection for a number of reasons. The primary reason is they saw a unique area they knew people for generation to come would want to see but also knew that greedy people would also want to move in and charge people to see it. They knew these people would also build things that would destroy the beauty of the area to make more money. Another reason was to protect the area for scientific reasons. Think the cliff dwellings when the pot hunters took artifacts to sell and we lost the scientific and historical understanding of the people who created them. Lastly is to protect the area from just plain greed. Our National Forests are there as a forest reserve. A long time ago someone was smart enough to see if we left the logging companies go unchecked they would cut down every tree without thought for the future. The Great Smoky Mountain National Park was created for this very reason.


We also need to remember that much of the land that makes up our National Parks and Monuments are lands that were donated by people who wanted their land protected. To undo the protection would be to violate the contract the Federal Government has with that person. A lot of other lands in the National Park and National Forest system have always belonged to the Federal Government. When an area became a U.S. territory, ownership of the land was the U.S. Government until it sold it to settlers. For example, much of eastern Tennessee was given by the Federal Government to settlers for their service during the American Revolution (Bounty Land). Some of this land never got sold, like Yellowstone National Park for example. By putting protections on these lands is the Governments way of saying we have no intention of selling these public lands and now there are restrictions people will have to follow when they use these public lands.


State Governments also do a good job of protecting lands as well. When I think of State protection the New River Gorge and National River comes to mind. It was created because it was an important water source and an important eco-system that had been raped by the logging companies and coal industry. The people of West Virginia felt strongly about protecting it but knew the Federal Government needed to protect it to make sure stay protected so it would come back to life. On the opposite site of the fence is the Grand Canyon. Some slick individual staked thousands of mining claims around the canyon in order to charge people to see the canyon. When the Federal Government made it a National Park he took them to court saying they didn’t have the authority. The case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court who ruled against him. With that failure he ran for the U.S. Senate and got elected. His whole reason for running for the Senate was to get his claims back so he could keep milking people at the canyon. At the State level parks aren’t as protected (long term) as if National. This is why West Virginia wanted New River Gorge to be under Federal Protection, it’s much harder to get the protection removed.


One of the biggest reasons people don’t like protecting areas is they really don’t understand the benefits of doing this. Alaska comes to mind. Under President Carter they set aside millions of acres of land for protection. There was one town that was so upset about this they past not one but two resolutions condemning it. After a couple years the town revoked the resolutions then turned around and asked to Federal Government to add more land to the Park. Why? The economy of their town boomed when park visitors started showing up. They were upset because they saw their way of life would change, they couldn’t run around on this land and do whatever they wanted anymore. When they saw that their quality of life would improve they changed their minds. No, they were not profiting directly off the park but people visiting the park were spending money in their town. This economic improvement has happened in a number of towns near National Parks. So it’s a two for one, we get beautiful lands protected for all of us to enjoy and its boasts economies in the area.


The Grand Canyon example brings up the main issue. This guy that ran for the Senate and won was only doing it for personal reasons. The people elected someone who had no interest in representing them. I think this is the bigger issue today. My team or your team, my political party or yours. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties, it says represent the PEOPLE. The people of Arizona at that time listened to this guy’s hype without finding out what he was truly about or what his intentions were. We need to stop listening to the hype and make the effort to find out the truth.

 

[luchaDor]

My question in all of this really was, is there a governing & previously existing treaty with Native American tribes that really trumps (pun intended) any executive orders? ie...Was the prior administration trying to right a previous wrong?

It'd be refreshing to see Indian Affairs & Tribes, the State of Utah and the BLM all come together with a workable plan for the area that protects truly historic sites and allow access to all of us. Maybe an access fee to campers/overlanders/rv'ers etc that is split so everyone makes money...cuz that's usually at the heart of a lot of these issues.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

A. The Land does not belong to the State of Utah, no more today than 50 years go. It simply reverts back to the sample BLM and FS that would have or did manage the monuments. What this does is change the management directive for the land.

This is not de facto bad for the overland community and in fact 4x4 access proponents, clubs and groups here in Utah and elsewhere are applauding the decision for a variety of reasons but access and continued access to existing and historic routes being most fundamental. Our state and county officials have been working to have the GSENM reversed since the day it was proclaimed, likewise they were proactively working on BENM.

Why are they celebrating? As we saw with GSENM, the new management principle is/was far more prone to access closures and historic routes started getting axed, Paris Canyon, Horse Canyon, Silver Falls, etc, etc, etc. Plus short spurs, many primitive camping sites, etc. Many of these closed roads were listed on the county road databases and still contested under RS2477 laws. Despite the "public" outcry you read about the monument situation and the long standing road battles... the elected officials fighting for them on state/local levels keep making their way back to office.

I met with a senior staffer from Senetor Hatches office on this exact subject earlier in the year. This isn't a Trump issue, it was a receptive ear issue for their office, I.e they would have plead the case to anyone willing to listen.

Access to areas within Beef Basin/Bears Ears were already threatened during the last BLM Resource Management Plan (I spent 40+ hours working on that RMP) and would certainly get a much higher level of scrutiny with the new NM. Overall, I feel the BENM was an answer in search of a problem. Oil, gas and mining haven't been swooning over the area for the previous 50 years, so why since Dec 2016 is there suddenly a need for oil with an extremely high cost of extraction, coal when established mines are shuttering operations a county to the north and Uranium that had its boom decades ago... all while nearly a dozen existing Wilderness Study Areas exist in these same lands, providing de facto protection that still doesn't hold a candle to ARPA which is stronger than the Antiquities Act. Oh, and the Grand Canyon Trust, well they has this to say about OGM in the monument: "the uranium mining boom in southeast Utah has long since passed, and oil and gas are not resources that exist in high quality or great quantity in Bears Ears.” So again, is OGM extraction a huge concern, do the many layers of due process we already have on Federal Land not enough?

This is Industrial Wreckreation at its best.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Just to add a bit of clarity about how and what the routes look like that were lost with the GSENM. Horse Canyon is a fantastic example. It was open in it's entirety (13 miles) pre-GSENM. With the creation of the monument, charter docs have them closing it "administratively" in 1996? when they did an entirely new Travel Management Plan for the NM. It took several years for these closures to actually reach the ground but it along with many others disappeared from the National Monuments approved travel map, poof!

Here is the approved, authorized, ratified, official motorized travel map for a small tidbit of GSENM called Wolverine Loop, Horse Canyon is circled as it ends with a sort spur to a TH (trail head)



These are the routes in the area that existed as "4WD", "JEEP" or "Road" prior to the NM including the 13? mile long Horse Canyon. It's hard to see in this scale but it runs all the way south to Little Bown Bench, quite a fantastic route.



Al of the C's cover spurs, routes and connections I referred to in my earlier post, these were the routes closed. Many are county claimed so it's my opinion there is hope there. Here is the county/state claim on they same road.



Ironically some they support the NM's as they were are just fine running a road that the NM itself calls "closed", so they love the "protection" the NM affords but the vehicular access the state/counties (anti-NM) provide. Can you have it both ways?

The county road departments are ready to strike given the current climate. Check out this road map set I picked up from San Juan County at the outbreak of BENM news. It has amazing detail and they spent a great deal of time claiming roads in the foreground of BENM happening. I'm working on a similar county road book from Kane County. I know they are in the process of revising as of Monday.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Now, I should clarify about who owns the land. The public (you and I) own the land, it is simply administered by the BLM/FS. But what about Stste Trust Land (SITLA), land used to generate revenue for our school systems? There was much protest over the BENM due to the amount of SITLA property it Land locked within the monument. Each of the blue squares is State Trust Land

 

[DMG]

I'm probably opening up a can of worms here by bringing this up, but how does everyone feel about the reduction in size to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase? Is there more to come? As Overlanders, I would think we would all oppose this change and destruction, but I could be wrong. While I don't want to get into the politics behinds this and such, I do feel the need to pick everyone's brain on this.

It is still BLM Land, just like it was before the illegal monument designation. Now that it will no longer be a National Monument, we can overland, fish, ride and do a variety of things we couldn’t do while it was a National Monument.

Why did you use the word ‘destruction’?

 

[adventure_is_necessary]

It is still BLM Land, just like it was before the illegal monument designation. Now that it will no longer be a National Monument, we can overland, fish, ride and do a variety of things we couldn’t do while it was a National Monument.

Why did you use the word ‘destruction’?

It's more of the potential for destruction if the natural resources at these locations are tapped.

 

[luchaDor]

I became less alarmed when I realized that it is just returning to the status it was 12 mos ago before Pres. Obama signed it over as a NP. Its just back to that status. As for something destructive, it's highly unlikely it'd be coal mined. The Navajo Generating Station, largest coal fired plant in the west, is on the verge of shutting down (last I read), so starting up a new one, just isn't economically feasible. Natural Gas has just become cheaper and cleaner plus all the wind & solar generating power coming online.

I suspect if the NGS does shut down, the tribes *might* turn to us Overlander's & tourists to sell use permits & fee's to replace the net loss of income the tribes have today. (It could be a win win!)

 

[DMG]

It's more of the potential for destruction if the natural resources at these locations are tapped.

1. The Land was open to overlanders until Obama took it away. It is being returned to us. If you have a problem with that you may be on the wrong forum.

2. The Antiquities Act requires the Monument be created using the minimum amount of surrounding land. This was not done in this case.

 

[feetforbrains]

I'd invite anyone who's actually interested in the longterm condition of those lands south of Canyon Lands to look at the lands north of Moab past Green River. It's nothing like the place I grew up. Follow the river drainage up toward Desolation and Gray's Canyons and I guarantee you'll find a natural gas well or pumping substation in what until about a decade ago was next to wilderness. Stay on the pavers north to Woodside, Price or Helper and marvel at an overgrazed wasteland with chronic salts leaching issues and emaciated pronghorn. Or take off west, from Highway 6 on any number of dirt paths that meander up into the San Rafael Swell and be amazed at settling ponds and fracking dump sites.

Yes, the coal up past Helper has always been there, but its time has come and gone as is evidenced by the dusty and empty population centers below Solider's Summit. Most of the lands on the west side of the Bookcliffs and Roans have been beaten and worn from an age of BLM protection. Which is to say, politely and with all due respect, the same protection offered by pirates and slavers.

National Monument status has it's downsides, for certain, but one of them is not the for potential leasing.

 

[BigDogKona]

I'm probably opening up a can of worms here by bringing this up, but how does everyone feel about the reduction in size to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase? Is there more to come? As Overlanders, I would think we would all oppose this change and destruction, but I could be wrong. While I don't want to get into the politics behinds this and such, I do feel the need to pick everyone's brain on this.

The biggest threat to overlanding is the Federal Government controlling land. They have been closing access to roads faster than anyone can keep track. There is always some lizard or weed that deserves protecting, and by God they sure can't survive with a vehicle driving by once in a while. The state of Utah has a much more vested interest in protecting those lands than the Federal Gov't, especially since the land is in Utah! States can manage land with local decision making... something the Federal Government simply can't do.