Obama declares Bears Ears National Monument in southern Utah

Obama will be remembered favorably for this.

How many people today are opposed to Acadia, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Great Smoky Mountains, and Grand Teton? All of those parks were bitterly opposed by the extraction industry at the time of their creation as well.

Rob took the words right out of my mouth. It's the same political party who tries to propose things like One Wasatch, and Skilink. Look em up.

Lets look up a few of the recent wilderness designations or national monument legislation that has occurred in Utah in recent times. Were any of these proposed by, or passed, by the predominant political party? Probably not.

I think it's more like they want to say fuck it, let's put ski lifts everywhere, drill oil, burn and bury nuclear waste in the west desert, and mine more coal to power our toys, along with selling coal to China. Economics are their only bottom line, along with blue eyed Jesus.

CLandis, I appreciate all of the attention you give to Utah, but you can't say that the predominant political party gives a shit about the land in Utah. So you see, this is not a ridiculous statement, because it is 100% true. There is no compromise with them.

Now we can go back to blaming Obama.

Guy Keesee wrote:In my experience I find that the Federal Government taking over is never a good thing for climbers. Never ever never.

There is no federal "take over." 100% of this already is federal land, aka public land. That means it is partially YOUR land, even though you don't live in Utah. So, YOU actually have a say in how it is managed. What a terrible idea, letting YOU participate. It almost sounds like a democratic process, though of course we live in a republic. I wonder who owns the lands in California you're accustomed to climbing on, such poor stewards as they must be.

ddriver... ok let me rephrase... When BLM or other federal land gets the status upped to "MONUMENT" status, and falls under the jurisdiction of the NPS... nothing good ever never happens....

Guy Keesee wrote:ddriver... ok let me rephrase... When BLM or other federal land gets the status upped to "MONUMENT" status, and falls under the jurisdiction of the NPS... nothing good ever never happens....

You're right. Nothing good never happens. Good things happen all the time, in fact.

And yes, CLandis, I've spent a few months in the area, and I absolutely love it. I'm thrilled, as mentioned before, that the area will be preserved.

This, like much of Obama' legacy, may be erased. Sad.

Some reading for those interested:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_…
extension.usu.edu/utahrange…
grandcanyontrust.org/sites/…
The majority of energy extraction interest in the area is generally in the form of shale/tar sands and uranium deposits that form in sandstone. In regards to oil sands, the majority of tar sands in the continental US do exist in utah, however this is a pretty small portion of the overall oil in the US... And the feasibility/environmental and production cost of developing these areas comes into question as tar sands require a huge amount of energy to extract compared to other sources.

Yes we as a country should continue to develop oil resources, oil is not going away anytime soon no matter how bad certain groups want it. That does not mean that we should haphazardly develop every deposit or oil containing formation because some are easier/less costly to develop for many reasons.

There is a similar fight going on all over the west. There are uranium deposits in the grand canyon, should those be developed (certain groups are pushing for development) or should areas that are less unique/environmentally fragile be selected for development first?
I personally welcome this designation, i am a recent implant to Utah and am glad to see the land protected in some fashion that maintains public access even if that means some tourism development, which is really the lesser evil in the long run? Hopefully this saves some precious areas that have tribal significance, a major loss of a very similar resource (Oak Flat in AZ close to where i grew up) also recently occurred so i am glad to see the flip side where some land is saved from development for industrial purposes. Thanks Obama!

For those worried about change. I was part of the group that worked with the NPS when the City of Rocks when it was designated as a National Reserve. I and other climbers spent many, many hours on the management plan for both the reserve and climbing.

Here are some of the negative changes:

1) Twin Sisters closed to climbing ... not the fault of the NPS but the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer and the Oregon California Trail Ass.

2) New route development is regulated, though few applications are denied.

3) Camping is reservation based and almost always full.

Here are some of positive changes:

1) Social trails have removed with better main trails.

2) Toilets

3) Kick-ass pizza and beer restaurant.

4) Hot Spring (well sometimes).

Overall going up to the City today is just a good as it was BITD. In fact we no longer pack camping gear, we drive up on Sat am, climb, grab a pizza and beers, sleep outside of the Reserve, climb on Sunday, and drive home.

My suggestion is that if you are concerned get involved!!!!

s.price wrote: Bears Ears will continue to be administered by the NFS and BLM. Simply stating this as a matter of fact. I have no dog is this fight. Been going out there for years. Don't expect much to change. Beautiful country for sure but absolutely no reason for climbers to start going there. None at all. Ya'll keep to Indian Creek.

Not disagreeing with your comments, but Indian Creek is a part of this new "Monument". . . as are Lockhart Basin and both Texas and Arch Canyons.

Certainly some roads will be closed, some created and paved, and likely fees charged for entry and camping.
This is a forever thing, whereas any extractions that would have been allowed is temporary, and highly regulated within a very small area. Extractions take a ton of water, and likely aren't supportable/viable in most of this area.
What bothers me the most, and what I find most destructive is a practice that will continue to be allowed within this Nat Mon. . . free-range cattle.

Gov. Herbert and Sen. Lee want to reverse this, could Trump reverse Obama's action when in office? The Gov. and Sen. claim the BLM would enforce existing laws designed to protect cultural resources, the area would have been adequately protected, thus no need for it to be a NM. For some reason I feel they don't have the best interest of the environment, it looks more like a business deal. At this stage what would be the best outcome?

Super Fluke wrote:Gov. Herbert and Sen. Lee want to reverse this, could Trump reverse Obama's action when in office?

Legal opinion is that a NM designation can not be nullified. However, NM boundaries have been modified (both enlarged and reduced). The question will be if Drumpf reduces the boundary is what happens next? Regardless there will be lawsuits.

Super Fluke wrote:Gov. Herbert and Sen. Lee want to reverse this, could Trump reverse Obama's action when in office? The Gov. and Sen. claim the BLM would enforce existing laws designed to protect cultural resources, the area would have been adequately protected, thus no need for it to be a NM. For some reason I feel they don't have the best interest of the environment, it looks more like a business deal. At this stage what would be the best outcome?

If Obama went on record saying "puppies are adorable" Herbert and Lee would hold a rage filled press conference decrying puppies as everything that is wrong with the world today...

Super Fluke wrote:Gov. Herbert and Sen. Lee want to reverse this, could Trump reverse Obama's action when in office? ...

I have been curious about this so I've done a little research. I'm not a lawyer (yet), though. TLDR: maybe, but probably not?

I don't think Trump could eliminate the National Monument on his own. The Antiquities Act doesn't have any provision for the elimination of a national monument and there is an old (~1930s) opinion letter from the Attorney General at the time that concluded that a president does not have the power to remove a monument designation under the Act. None of this has been adjudicated in the courts, as far as I know, so this could all change if Trump decided to give it a shot and won in court. FWIW the Bush administration backed-off attempts to remove monument designation of some midnight-designations made by Clinton perhaps indicating an internal view that Bush would lose in the courts and a weak stomach for first 100 days battles. Overturning Bears Ears might not be a huge priority considering there's so much work to be done on that damn wall! and tweeting @SNL and @da homie Vlad.

A president can minimize or reduce a monument in scope, as Allen noted. That power comes from the fact that the Antiquities Act says something along the lines of "the monument cannot be any bigger than necessary to preserve the characteristics for which it was designated." I believe more than one president has adjusted the borders of prior-designated monuments. Perhaps Trump could wield this power to minimize the value of Bears Ears, although he would then be dealing with inertia of the regulatory structure set up by the proclamation (i.e. co-management with local tribes).

All that said, if Congress gets involved, then perhaps Bears Ears could get eliminated. My understanding is that Congress could eliminate the designation through a normal Act of Congress. Although Republicans control Congress, they do not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate so it is unlikely that Congress could do anything about it through normal means (unless Ds flip).

The final wrinkle in all of this, and the piece I am least certain about, is something called the Congressional Review Act. The CRA allows Congress to invalidate "major rules" passed by Federal agencies by passing a "Resolution of Disapproval," and having the President sign it, within 60 "session days" of when the rule became final. Crucially, the CRA allows the use of expedited procedure in the Senate and passage of a Resolution of Disapproval by simple majority, which adds up to NO FILIBUSTER, meaning the Ds are SOL if most Rs are in line.

The CRA usually has no use because what President would be willing to sign a Resolution of Disapproval when his own administration promulgated the very rule at issue? The CRA, however, does come into the picture when the White House changes hands and creates the possibility that the incoming Congress will send Resolutions of Disapproval of regulations, adopted by the old White House, to the new White House for signature. Everything I've seen says that the Republicans will be able to use this procedure to potentially invalidate Obama-era major rules that were put into place back till about June of 2016.

So, the question becomes: is a presidential proclamation creating a national monument a "major rule" under the terms of the CRA? If it is, it is clearly within the 60 day window opened by the CRA and it could spell the end of the Monument designation. I believe this would be a novel issue for the courts to consider, and they could get the final say here, too. Personally I see arguments both ways, although my gut says the text of the CRA implicitly excludes presidential proclamations from review.

BTW: I am totally psyched on this designation and I am proud to have taken a class with Prof. Wilkinson at Colorado Law who was an integral part of putting this Monument together. He is a legend around here and throughout the desert southwest. Lawyers (both armchair and real) what did I get wrong?

/novel

Congressional Review Act applies to rule making which is done by an agency and is a very different process than a presidential proclamation. So it would not apply.

Mike Lane wrote:www.nhonews.com/news/2016/oct/14/utah-navajos-join-lawmakers-oppose-bears-ears/ The actual Navajo locals did not want this. Had this been in place during the budget standoff, the Feds would have kept all you snowflakes out of Indian Creek. The Park Service is broke and has a $25B maintenance backlog. Now they can simply close the area due to budgetary constraints. We have a $20T debt, so don't think the budget will get fixed. A potential revenue source for Utah, via excise taxes has been removed. If you live in Utah prepare for higher taxes and reduced services in the near future. There are plenty of people about who see humans as a cancer and many know that the best way to constrain humans from nature is via regulatory agencies. This area is now one zealot beaureaucrat away from being declared off limits due to environmental sensitivity. This is another block in the tower of centralized power, which is adversarial to liberty. Be prepared to pay much higher user fees, have many more restrictions placed upon you, no longer have the option of motorized travel to the more remote crags, and always have the threat of simply being locked out hanging over your heads.

^ Yup.

I also want to know why this is a good thing. So far it just seems to be a knee-jerk "yay increased federal regulations can only be a good thing!" cheer.

The only thing threatening climbing in IC are the climbers. Anyone who climbed Incredible Hand Crack before it turned into a fist crack knows what I'm talking about. There is no Monument regulation which prevents people climbing wet rock. What it will undoubtedly do is increase fees and traffic. More people will come, including non-climbers with full size RVs. This will mean more campgrounds, more foot traffic, more unintentional garbage, more infrastructure to deal with fecal matter and garbage, etc. It's also the first step into turning it into a national park ALL of which are police states.

JTree used to be a monument and you could all camp at one 'site' if you wanted. You could have more than six people at a camp fire. You could actually enjoy your stay without LEOs sniffing the air for weed and generally being dicks. The roads weren't paved for giant RVs and finding a place to camp was NEVER an issue until it became a park.

There are also safety concerns as you may now need permission to replace bad anchors, one failure of which has already caused a fatality.

If you don't mind me saying so, there appears to be a generational difference when it comes to shit like this, but I think the site rules disallow me from pointing out why.

txclimber wrote:...some of the locals being concerned that their intentionally small town community atmosphere will become corrupted...

I wonder what others think. I feel that I can sympathize with those who experience growing pains but I do not feel like I should respect folks' who believe their place is so great but they should not have to share it with anyone, nor should they have to experience change. Both of those sentiments are childish.

Right now, it is too early to tell exactly how this will play out. It all depends on how it is managed.

I visit the area a lot. I can be up on Cedar Mesa in an hour from where I live. I've been doing quite a bit of hiking/exploring in those canyons the past couple of years, seeking out ruins and rock art and just amazing landscapes. 

One thing I would like to see done away with is the grazing of cattle. I'm sorry, I know a few locals derive a livelihood off of grazing their cattle up there, but when I see cow pies on top of archaeological sites, I'm sorry, the cows have to go! That is an inappropriate use of this fragile ecosystem as well as an abuse of national treasures.

Rich Ludwig wrote:

how it is managed

...which can change willy nilly by paper pushers thousands of miles away.

Another non-problem solved by Team Why The Hell Not