Destruction of Nationally protected land??

[feetforbrains]

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.

1. There are a handful of Parks and Monuments north of BENM and GSNM that are renowned for their off-road trails. Antiquities Act designations do not preclude access, wheeled or otherwise. They do, however, set up a framework for the long-term stewardship of those same resources you'd like to visit.

2. Your second proclamation is certainly debatable. Begin with the fact that both of those areas are littered with remains and artifacts of Native peoples.

 

[feetforbrains]

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.

Examples, who wouldn't love to see or hear about examples of such trail closures. Then once we've got that list of closures let's compare it to what gets closed off when someone gets a natural resource lease anywhere in the west. Or just try and drive up to a fracking sub-station. Seriously, I'd much prefer a seasonal road closure to high desert plateau when the Sage Grouse are broody than private security padlocked gates for lease easements into the backcountry.

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.

Funny, the Feds employ a lot of people at the regional and local levels to manage lands under stewardship, I never knew that these people weren't local enough. Guys like Hatch and Bishop have been trying to sell off what was never theirs for decades, their "vested interest" is little more than the middle garment of a three-piece suit.

 

[DMG]

1. There are a handful of Parks and Monuments north of BENM and GSNM that are renowned for their off-road trails. Antiquities Act designations do not preclude access, wheeled or otherwise. They do, however, set up a framework for the long-term stewardship of those same resources you'd like to visit.

2. Your second proclamation is certainly debatable. Begin with the fact that both of those areas are littered with remains and artifacts of Native peoples.

1. In general, National Monuments are closed to fishing, Overlanding, mountain biking, hunting and most activities.

2. A freshly plowed field in Ohio or Pennsylvania is likely yield native artifacts. The threshold for closing land as the antiquities act does is in reality much higher than an assumption that there is something there. Or there would be National Monuments everywhere.


*when I was a kid we would search freshly plowed fields for Indian arrowheads.

 

[BigDogKona]

Examples, who wouldn't love to see or hear about examples of such trail closures. Then once we've got that list of closures let's compare it to what gets closed off when someone gets a natural resource lease anywhere in the west. Or just try and drive up to a fracking sub-station. Seriously, I'd much prefer a seasonal road closure to high desert plateau when the Sage Grouse are broody than private security padlocked gates for lease easements into the backcountry.



Funny, the Feds employ a lot of people at the regional and local levels to manage lands under stewardship, I never knew that these people weren't local enough. Guys like Hatch and Bishop have been trying to sell off what was never theirs for decades, their "vested interest" is little more than the middle garment of a three-piece suit.

You’d see many examples of closed roads in this very thread... if you actually read other comments on here.

Regarding the rest of the crap you typed, I don’t care what you think.


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

 

[BigDogKona]

Seems to me this thread is not going to help anyone enjoy overlanding and should be shut down and deleted.


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

 

[DMG]

Seems to me this thread is not going to help anyone enjoy overlanding and should be shut down and deleted.


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

It seems like a couple of posters would like to take away our land access

 

[feetforbrains]

You’d see many examples of closed roads in this very thread... if you actually read other comments on here.

Regarding the rest of the crap you typed, I don’t care what you think.

Oh, you mean this ...

"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."

Yes, I read that and the rest too. I'd suggest it'd probably be a good idea to examine the RMP that was being reviewed prior to the proclamation because this is likely where the regional office will pick up once all the legal business with the Parks Service and the rest of the world settles. Keep in mind that the BLM has a similar mandate to the Parks Service when it comes to protecting antiquities and recreational opportunities and add to this that there has been a history of disruption and damage especially to sites near Cedar Mesa and the outcome for these roads may, in fact, be the same.

As far as road access is concerned, Parks' first action is almost never to close. Pave, sure if they have the funds, but not close, not without a very tangible reason. Congress tends to get their panties in a bunch if and when Interior tells citizens they can't have access to public lands. Having interviewed folks from SUWA and Cedar Mesa about these reductions as well as a handful of people who make their living guiding motorized trips into Utah's backcountry I think I can say that while not perfect, NM status is a better compromise than State management in their minds.

"Why," you ask? Well, historically Utah has screwed up State land management even worse than some of the disasters you can find scattered across the West on Federal lands. Most of the communities I've talked with see State ownership/management of public lands as a pretext to sale (regardless if it's full privatization or State-lease to any of a handful of concerns including mining, water, livestock, etc.). And that's not to say that anyone anticipates the lands which were part of BENM or GSENM will be turned over to Utah anytime soon. But, that is where the pressure has traditionally been applied.

Other parks and monuments in the region are excellent examples of what I mean. North Arches is networked with plenty of jeeping, Canyonlands has the White Rim, most of the Needles across the river can't be accessed without a 4x4 and some skill. All of these are on Parks managed lands they're just a few of the sum total of overland routes.

Outside the region, the West is host to many more routes on Parks land. Mojave Trails National Monument is predicated around an overland route. Death Valley has some amazing routes that will make you feel like you're driving on another planet. Great Basin in NV has a bunch of jeeping trails stuck smack in the middle of the Highland Ridge Wilderness Area, literally the only place you can drive is in the park. White Sands and Gila both have backcountry roads to travel. Yes, this is not always the case, the notion that motorized access will be denied simply by creating or expanding a park is a bit of a red herring.

Personally, there are places in BENM and GSENM that I'd love to see get full Wilderness designation under the 1964 act, but considering the current political climate, I'm not holding my breath. Otherwise, these places are unreachable save for those with hard feet and gritty souls. Preservation like this would mean road closure if only to provide buffer zones for said wilderness, except along well defined and managed corridors. However, one malignant bulldozer running amok is all it would take to forever alter this delicate state of affairs.

Look at that, I've responded to your post without being dismissive or offended. I'll acknowledge that its unlikely I'll change your mind on this or any other topic. However, while doing so, I maintained my right to freely express my mind without impinging on yours.

“Poor Hayduke: won all his arguments but lost his immortal soul.”
― Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang

 

[feetforbrains]

1. In general, National Monuments are closed to fishing, Overlanding, mountain biking, hunting and most activities.

I'm going to suggest that you're mixing up a few ideas here. For instance, Yellowstone NP is home to some of the best fly fishing on this planet. Last May, I rode the White Rim -- Mineral Bottom to Island in the Sky -- with my oldest son. I've jeeped more than once to the Race Track in Death Valley. As far as "hunting and most activities" are concerned, you'd have to look up the rules per park or monument, but none of this is universally forbidden.

Now, as far as mix up, is it possible that you're conflating Park/Monument status with Wilderness? Overlanding via anything other than hoof or boot is prevented. Mountain biking has been off the list in Wilderness too, but that may change sooner than later. Hunting and fishing are almost always allowed.

2. A freshly plowed field in Ohio or Pennsylvania is likely yield native artifacts. The threshold for closing land as the antiquities act does is in reality much higher than an assumption that there is something there. Or there would be National Monuments everywhere.

*when I was a kid we would search freshly plowed fields for Indian arrowheads.

Yeah, there's the problem. "Closing land as the antiquities act does," is an unfair characterization. Monument designation doesn't "close" anything, rather it changes the conditions of the lands stewardship.

 

[BigDogKona]

Oh, you mean this ...

"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."

Yes, I read that and the rest too. I'd suggest it'd probably be a good idea to examine the RMP that was being reviewed prior to the proclamation because this is likely where the regional office will pick up once all the legal business with the Parks Service and the rest of the world settles. Keep in mind that the BLM has a similar mandate to the Parks Service when it comes to protecting antiquities and recreational opportunities and add to this that there has been a history of disruption and damage especially to sites near Cedar Mesa and the outcome for these roads may, in fact, be the same.

As far as road access is concerned, Parks' first action is almost never to close. Pave, sure if they have the funds, but not close, not without a very tangible reason. Congress tends to get their panties in a bunch if and when Interior tells citizens they can't have access to public lands. Having interviewed folks from SUWA and Cedar Mesa about these reductions as well as a handful of people who make their living guiding motorized trips into Utah's backcountry I think I can say that while not perfect, NM status is a better compromise than State management in their minds.

"Why," you ask? Well, historically Utah has screwed up State land management even worse than some of the disasters you can find scattered across the West on Federal lands. Most of the communities I've talked with see State ownership/management of public lands as a pretext to sale (regardless if it's full privatization or State-lease to any of a handful of concerns including mining, water, livestock, etc.). And that's not to say that anyone anticipates the lands which were part of BENM or GSENM will be turned over to Utah anytime soon. But, that is where the pressure has traditionally been applied.

Other parks and monuments in the region are excellent examples of what I mean. North Arches is networked with plenty of jeeping, Canyonlands has the White Rim, most of the Needles across the river can't be accessed without a 4x4 and some skill. All of these are on Parks managed lands they're just a few of the sum total of overland routes.

Outside the region, the West is host to many more routes on Parks land. Mojave Trails National Monument is predicated around an overland route. Death Valley has some amazing routes that will make you feel like you're driving on another planet. Great Basin in NV has a bunch of jeeping trails stuck smack in the middle of the Highland Ridge Wilderness Area, literally the only place you can drive is in the park. White Sands and Gila both have backcountry roads to travel. Yes, this is not always the case, the notion that motorized access will be denied simply by creating or expanding a park is a bit of a red herring.

Personally, there are places in BENM and GSENM that I'd love to see get full Wilderness designation under the 1964 act, but considering the current political climate, I'm not holding my breath. Otherwise, these places are unreachable save for those with hard feet and gritty souls. Preservation like this would mean road closure if only to provide buffer zones for said wilderness, except along well defined and managed corridors. However, one malignant bulldozer running amok is all it would take to forever alter this delicate state of affairs.

Look at that, I've responded to your post without being dismissive or offended. I'll acknowledge that its unlikely I'll change your mind on this or any other topic. However, while doing so, I maintained my right to freely express my mind without impinging on yours.

“Poor Hayduke: won all his arguments but lost his immortal soul.”
― Edward Abbey, The Monkey Wrench Gang

The red herring is the topic of this entire thread, stating that the land will be destroyed simply because Obama’s proclamation has been reversed.


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

 

[feetforbrains]

The red herring is the topic of this entire thread, stating that the land will be destroyed simply because Obama’s proclamation has been reversed.

That is indeed another red herring, however, I don't think I've suggested I agree with that assertion of the situation in the least.

Just to be clear BikeHauler went on to say the following.

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.

Looks to me like another concerned citizen trying to wrap his head around a couple of major "unconventional" changes in the disposition of his/her public lands. That and it appears he's applying the noun "destruction" to the Monument status and not the lands.

 

[BigDogKona]

That is indeed another red herring, however, I don't think I've suggested I agree with that assertion of the situation in the least.

Just to be clear BikeHauler went on to say the following.



Looks to me like another concerned citizen trying to wrap his head around a couple of major "unconventional" changes in the disposition of his/her public lands. That and it appears he's applying the noun "destruction" to the Monument status and not the lands.

In general terms, my thought process is simple: Local decisions should be made locally. What happens on a piece of land should be decided by the stakeholders in that piece of land, not by bureaucrats in Washington D.C.. No one has a more vested interest in land-use issues than the people that live and work in the area and depend on the land. Keeping decisions local gives the little guy a bigger voice. Moving land-use decisions to the Federal Court System or to bureaucrats in DC does nothing to protect the people that depend on the land for their livelihood. It accomplishes quite the opposite actually, it pulls power away from the locals and puts it in the hands of DC attorneys hired by the radical environmental and green groups. The only time the Federal Government should be involved is when an issue crosses state lines, a perfect example of that is dealing with water rights.

Moab is a good example of an area where the locals had enough clout to block many of the attempts to close access. The only reason they've been successful is because there is so much tourism revenue created by the off-road community. Without that revenue, the locals wouldn't have had the means to fight. Glamis is another area where the locals (Southern Californians) fought to regain use of the land. It took 14 YEARS of fighting in court to win, and they did, but the land never should have been closed in the first place. The science wasn't there to support the closure. Unfortunately, more remote areas that don't see as much tourism don't have anyone fighting the closures, so the enviro groups get access closed relatively easily, and it is almost always permanent since no one is fighting to get it reopened.

In response to your earlier posts, there are thousands of examples of roads being shut down all over the western US by the federal government, on land held by the BLM, FS, and NPS (Big Three). The problem is so big that there are non-profit organizations dedicated to stopping and hopefully reversing the trend. To deny that fact (as you did) is disingenuous and dishonest, and your denial is the primary reason I stopped reading your first response. The Big Three bend over backwards to honor closure requests from radical groups like the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and others. The Big Three also have a compelling financial incentive to close access as well. Those organizations are typically paying 2-3 retirement pensions for every active law enforcement employee. That causes a huge problem in their operating budgets, and closing access allows them to more easily patrol their areas while paying for all those pensions.

Lastly, comparing NF maps from the 1990's to MVUMs from today is startling. There are literally thousands of miles of roads that have been closed, and even worse they've been removed from the maps which leads to problems for search and rescue crews, firefighters, etc. Most of these roads are closed due to a 'perceived' threat to wildlife, usually with no hard proof that the wildlife is actually being threatened, just that they "could" be threatened by motorized travel. Almost all of their arguments rely on slippery slope reasoning, similar to the arguments here (e.g. turning control of the land back to BLM or State control will ultimately cause the destruction of said land). So, they shove Jeepers, Overlanders, ATVers, etc. onto smaller and smaller plots of land, then they use that small plot of land as a case study to show how detrimental motorized travel is on the environment. Southern California has many prime examples of them using this tactic in the San Bernardino National Forest, the Glamis Dunes, Death Valley, etc. Even in low population states like NM, the Santa Fe National forest has hundreds of miles of closed roads that are perfectly passable but illegal to travel. Ironically, many of the roads are still used by ranchers who lease NF land, but technically they are illegal to travel on. How's that for a double standard?

 

[adventure_is_necessary]

I feel like I need to clarify my position since there's a lot of back and forth. From an environmental standpoint, this "could" be bad just for the lack of protection. As an Overlander, this opens up more possibilities for travel. My position is that I want to preserve our environment and the amazing formations such as the ones in question here so everyone can enjoy it for years to come. Overlanding has been a way for many of us to experience nature, myself included. I believe that IF the states step up and regulate the usage of the land in a manner that will help preserve the land but also open up opportunities for more efficient usage, then we're all golden, both from an environmental and an overlanding standpoint. I wouldn't mind paying a small fee to travel these roads that were once closed.

 

[soonersfan]

I feel like I need to clarify my position since the title of this thread is so misleading.

FIFY

 

[Caligirlnic]

The concern I have is the states agenda with the land. More often than not, they don't want to preserve the land. They want to make money off it and not in the ways we appreciate it. For Utah, there is so much un tapped coal and resources that is not in our best interest that the state wants to "rape" the land for their own monetary purposes. Yes we might not see it in our lifetimes, but isn't the purpose to pre sere these lands is to keep them protected foe generations beyond us?

Anyways thats my .02.

 

[BigDogKona]

The concern I have is the states agenda with the land. More often than not, they don't want to preserve the land. They want to make money off it and not in the ways we appreciate it. For Utah, there is so much un tapped coal and resources that is not in our best interest that the state wants to "rape" the land for their own monetary purposes. Yes we might not see it in our lifetimes, but isn't the purpose to pre sere these lands is to keep them protected foe generations beyond us?

Anyways thats my .02.

I agree certain places need to be preserved and managed FOR the public to enjoy, not to be shut-out for eternity. That’s ultimately the problem these days... anytime something is marked to be preserved it means no one is allowed to visit anymore. What good does that do?


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

 

[Caligirlnic]

I agree certain places need to be preserved and managed FOR the public to enjoy, not to be shut-out for eternity. That’s ultimately the problem these days... anytime something is marked to be preserved it means no one is allowed to visit anymore. What good does that do?


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

These were not closed to the public and I was even at Escalante a few weeks ago. Also remember that these parks are also geological marvels that have taken thousands/millions of year to be created that will surely be destroyed in months if they are used to extract resources that are outdated for public use.

 

[BigDogKona]

These were not closed to the public and I was even at Escalante a few weeks ago. Also remember that these parks are also geological marvels that have taken thousands/millions of year to be created that will surely be destroyed in months if they are used to extract resources that are outdated for public use.

The land has been reverted to the same control that had it before Obama did his land grab... so explain how all of a sudden the land will be raped and pillaged when it wasn’t before? Another poor slippery slope argument based on zero facts.


Sent from my iPhone using OB Talk

 

[Caligirlnic]

This is why people don't like to post on forums because of your inability to respect someone else's comments and not have to degrade them. Have a nice day Kona.

 

[DMG]

He’s right, though.