noharleyyet
Well-known member
Interesting perspective ringer. thanks for posting.
Zinke to tour Bears Ears on Monday
- Thread starter mfb99
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Grizzly, thanks for the response. As to the first "rescue, poor preparation" paragraph, I guess you just can't fix stupid!
Your comments regarding such protections and widespread information leading to overuse and actual damage are well-received. I think it's critical to truly protect these places from being overrun, yet allowing those who are willing to be prepared and perhaps reserve a spot. Examples of that working are with the lottery for limited float party permits on the remote Smith River of Montana and backcountry campsite permit reservations for Yellowstone and Glacier NP's. I have hiked Glacier for over six decades and have certainly seen the uptick in hikers and visitors to that area. When my wife and I canoed the Wild & Scenic Upper Missouri in 1990, we saw two other parties in a week ... now that density is in the first mile. It is a real dilemma keeping such pristine places protected and available to the public, but not allowing the public to ruin the place or the experience. However, I believe there are solutions.
What concerns me moreover is that with the current political climate, the push for extraction of natural resources will override the value of protecting these lands from irreparable damage. Once the roads, equipment, and processes for extraction are put on the ground, the impact is forever.
Your comments regarding such protections and widespread information leading to overuse and actual damage are well-received. I think it's critical to truly protect these places from being overrun, yet allowing those who are willing to be prepared and perhaps reserve a spot. Examples of that working are with the lottery for limited float party permits on the remote Smith River of Montana and backcountry campsite permit reservations for Yellowstone and Glacier NP's. I have hiked Glacier for over six decades and have certainly seen the uptick in hikers and visitors to that area. When my wife and I canoed the Wild & Scenic Upper Missouri in 1990, we saw two other parties in a week ... now that density is in the first mile. It is a real dilemma keeping such pristine places protected and available to the public, but not allowing the public to ruin the place or the experience. However, I believe there are solutions.
What concerns me moreover is that with the current political climate, the push for extraction of natural resources will override the value of protecting these lands from irreparable damage. Once the roads, equipment, and processes for extraction are put on the ground, the impact is forever.
elkduds
Well-known member
Based on my experiences in visiting the area over the past 2 decades because it is that spectacular, you can probably guess my answer. The area has seen accelerating increase in recreational use over that time, w little federal protection and disregard by UT for those few protection efforts. Pothunting w backhoes, for instance.
I have no doubt that Obama's decision to protect was informed by the incoming Trump administration's promise to drill and mine w impunity.
If you took Mesa Verde, Hovenweep and Canyons of the Ancients, and scattered that much archaeology over a larger and more diverse geographic/geologic area, you would have Bear's Ears. I won't tell you exactly where to go, but you should go.
I don't know a thing about this monument so I won't be an idiot and comment other than to say, there are people in this world who would piss and moan till the end of time if 1 flipping acre on the planet was protected and placed off limits to resource development.
grizzly_
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,210
Just to add one more wrinkle in the complexity of the Bears Ears... the locals all know this history, but many on HT probably do not.
There are a few family surnames that are very prevalent in Blanding; Redd (as in the article above) is one of them, other common surnames are Lyman, Shumway, and Black and most of the families are inter-related through marriage and blood.
Here is a link to a tragedy that befell the Redd family after one of them was charged with looting years ago (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/news/ci_12572033). I am not certain of the relationship between the deceased Dr. Redd and the City Manager quoted in the article, but it is likely one exists. The understanding of this story may give HT users another glimpse into the psyche of the residents of Blanding and Monticello. Ultimately, two defendants took their own lives after what some perceived to be a heavy-handed response by federal agents.
Another notable name is Phil Lyman who, as San Juan County Commissioner, was convicted and sentenced to 10 days in jail for his part in a protest ride down a road closed to protect ruins. Mr. Lyman's relationship to Lyman Family Farms, if there is one, is unknown to me... but it seems plausible. Lyman Family Farms is the company referenced here who has been buying up state trust lands and privatizing them (http://www.sltrib.com/home/4536249-155/family-farm-has-spent-millions-buying).
... I just thought those snippets might give a little more insight into the backstory behind the opposition to the Bears Ears by the locals, as well as the interconnected relationship of many of the prominent names that are interjected into the debate...
There are a few family surnames that are very prevalent in Blanding; Redd (as in the article above) is one of them, other common surnames are Lyman, Shumway, and Black and most of the families are inter-related through marriage and blood.
Here is a link to a tragedy that befell the Redd family after one of them was charged with looting years ago (http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/news/ci_12572033). I am not certain of the relationship between the deceased Dr. Redd and the City Manager quoted in the article, but it is likely one exists. The understanding of this story may give HT users another glimpse into the psyche of the residents of Blanding and Monticello. Ultimately, two defendants took their own lives after what some perceived to be a heavy-handed response by federal agents.
Another notable name is Phil Lyman who, as San Juan County Commissioner, was convicted and sentenced to 10 days in jail for his part in a protest ride down a road closed to protect ruins. Mr. Lyman's relationship to Lyman Family Farms, if there is one, is unknown to me... but it seems plausible. Lyman Family Farms is the company referenced here who has been buying up state trust lands and privatizing them (http://www.sltrib.com/home/4536249-155/family-farm-has-spent-millions-buying).
... I just thought those snippets might give a little more insight into the backstory behind the opposition to the Bears Ears by the locals, as well as the interconnected relationship of many of the prominent names that are interjected into the debate...
OriginalOscar
Active member
Why would we accept a designation which creates a system to limit access? You have confirmed why monument designation is not good.
The extraction with irreparable damage boogie man rings hollow. If there were resources worth extracting they would have been developed decades ago.
grizzly_
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,210
If there's nothing to extract, all current grazing/ logging/ mineral rights remain intact, and a predicted increase in tourism to the area... then how will the Monument designation hurt the economy as the locals claim? How do the locals intend to use the land to raise money for schools without selling it (which would increase property taxes) or extract from it (which would contribute a royalty to the state)?
If the land merely remains in the current state of free public access with little extractive industry, how can anybody claim the Monument hurts the economy and the ability of the locals to profit off the land (which belongs as much to you and me as it does to them)?
I've yet to see how anybody anticipates maintaining the status quo in relation to access and extraction but increasing generated revenue at the same time.
On the opposite side of that coin, if status quo is to remain how is the monument designation helping protect the area? Your earlier posts state that traffic/visitation has already increased greatly. Guaranteed that some artifacts have left the area in those vehicles, including a Subaru. In a way, I think it could be argued to some extent that the designation, "saves it to death". Which is the sentiment my friend from Escalante has of the GSENM and he was in the profession of natural resource management and darn good at it.
Very big thanks to ringer and grizzly for their contributions. I greatly enjoyed the insights.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And you "guarantee" that allegation as fact, how?
Granted there will be increased traffic and gawkers, searchers, and even nefarious characters traveling the Bears Ears ... but now with the national news and contentious issue, it has been brought to a high level of prominence as an interesting place. Whether it's a national monument, BLM, USFS, or otherwise managed and protected or not, that train has left the station ... no longer a quiet out-of-the way place only frequented by locals.
Terrible and inaccurate argument.
I can't prove it anymore than you can disprove it. My experience with the public on BLM lands lends me to ascertain that at least more than one artifact has left the area since the designation. More people visiting the area = more chitbirds that don't care for rules visiting the area, just as you stated. I agree, the interest in the area won't go away.
OriginalOscar
Active member
This area isn't the next Bakken or Overthrust energy boom. Yet it's the doomsday boogie man offered by many in favor of monument status.
The designation was another example of misuse of the Antiquities Act. The process and scope of area is my issue.
As Grizzly noted with his recent trip; we have history of loving things to death. StraightArrows note about permits to limit access if it becomes popular demonstrates why a monument designation can have a negative impact.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I also want to thank everyone for a good, thoughtful discussion here. It is immensely helpful since I have little knowledge on the background of this monument.
I tend to lean on the side of protecting special places, but in most cases I would rather see that happen via grassroots partnerships on a local level than monument designation. I agree that at times, monument designation can alter the character of a place when often its precisely that character that made people want to preserve it in the first place. But it seems nearly impossible today to get grassroots groups to sit down at one table and hammer out a workable solution on this kind of scale anymore. Everyone gets so hung up on not losing an inch that they lose the entire opportunity. I have no solution, but I can appreciate both sides of the issue here.
I tend to lean on the side of protecting special places, but in most cases I would rather see that happen via grassroots partnerships on a local level than monument designation. I agree that at times, monument designation can alter the character of a place when often its precisely that character that made people want to preserve it in the first place. But it seems nearly impossible today to get grassroots groups to sit down at one table and hammer out a workable solution on this kind of scale anymore. Everyone gets so hung up on not losing an inch that they lose the entire opportunity. I have no solution, but I can appreciate both sides of the issue here.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The point is not that there is a negative impact due to popular usage .... the point is that the negative impact can be easily mitigated through proper reasonable management of usage. There really is no extensive non-river overuse in Monuments, although above posts have asserted that the increase in the number of Subarus and out of area folks seems like overuse to them. Again the point is that future management can mitigate any real overuse problems, so it's really a non-starter. It is important to remember that these lands have never and do not today belong to the folks who live in the surrounding counties and states ... they are FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS that belong to all citizens of this nation, always have and hopefully always will. Let's agree to protect them!
OriginalOscar
Active member
See the red dots. No red dots in Bears Ears. If there was a vast trove of energy under Bears Ears it would have been a focus for development in the past. Every inch of Southeast Utah was explored during the Uranium Boom in the 40s-50s. http://www.drillingedge.com/utah/san-juan-county
Process and Scope are both wrong. Page 4 - Introduction - Wyoming and Alaska require legislative approval for monuments over 5,000 acres. All states should have equal protection. Page 5 - The term "smallest area" isn't 1M+ acres - https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41330.pdf
Odd there were companies nominating parcels and are attempting to drill exploratory wells within the boundaries of the Monument. I don't know if they will locate profitable amounts, but they have interest. Maybe they should touch base with you and let them know if it was there, it would have been developed decades ago.
Should they have equal protection, maybe? Do they, no. Thanks for your opinion, but until that is legally changed, it is just that, your opinion.
Opinions are great, but that doesn't make them facts.
Texas just identified an area with an estimated three times the recoverable amount of fluid minerals as the Bakken. Technology is a weird thing. Amazing they didn't have interest "decades" ago.
Anyway, back to my original point; because there was no interest decades ago, doesn't speak for the future. Worst case scenario, if it isn't there, why do you care if new lease are not permitted?
Babybull
New member
According to Douglas Brinkley in Theodore Roosevelt , The Wilderness Warrior all the representatives and congressmen in the west thought T.R. was abusing the antiquities act and did everything they could do to thwart him when he designated all the monuments, bird sanctuaries, and forest reserves while he was in office.
Is anyone outside the coal and oil and timber industries complaining now?
In the long run I think Bears ear will prove to be a good designation, If Zinke really is a T.R. conservationist he'll come around.
Is anyone outside the coal and oil and timber industries complaining now?
In the long run I think Bears ear will prove to be a good designation, If Zinke really is a T.R. conservationist he'll come around.
Last edited:
Our American voted Representatives to "represent" our interests is the foundation of our Democratic way of life. Debate is the cornerstone of this process. To express there was contention from hundreds within the House and Senate yet Roosevelt pushed forward as something of interest is the same as selecting the right fly for the current hatch on a favorite stream... it is a given regardless the issue.
By the Antiquities Act- preserve the historic and (or) Scientific interests with imminent danger within the least amount of land necessary is the KEY point as defined by Theodore Roosevelt and Congress.
Now last minute December 28th partisan abuse of their intent has led to an Authoritarian setting of a singular person dictating / sidestepping our American democratic due process. There is a defined difference between a National monument and a National park / Wilderness. Theodore Roosevelt's creation of our National Forest Service and a few years after him , the National Park Service is an identified and specified / distinguished difference from that of the Antiquities Act... for good reason.
Last edited:
