Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defend Bears Ears National Monument

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

I want to live in your world, it sounds nice, albeit very naive. The Adventure Pass is a perfect example of the bureaucracy maintaining and increasing itself. 

Turning Bear Ears into a national monument restricted access, it did not preserve or improve it. If Access Fund promoted the Bear Ears national monument effort then it did not work to support it's own charter. The Bear Ears National Monument effort was a real clown show from the start but it did shine a light on exactly who is a partisan-politics hack. I got a good chuckle at "The President Stole Your Land" social media campaign, now I know who isn't capable of critical thought. 

So what you are saying, in part, is that you can't tell the difference between Yvon Chinard (President of Patagonia) and the AF?  That was not an AF message.
And funny, when I spent time in BEARS EARS after the declaration, I had free passage there, but the drilling was on hold.

Speaking of Naive...

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

The antiquities act already prohibited that. There was no drilling or mining in BE to start with and it's already public land.

The Antiquieites Act did not apply until such time as the area was declared a monument.
BLM lad is fracked all to hell in many places and there are plots with lease areas for resource extraction on them right now.

These are facts and not flexible, despite what you want to believe or argue.  And those always catch up with you.  I recommend google as your solution.

" According to the Utah Bureau of Land Management, there are 23 existing federal oil and gas leases, all at least partially or wholly located within the boundaries, but no permits to drill on those leases, for now. "

Article on the leases

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Turning Bear Ears into a national monument restricted access, it did not preserve or improve it. 

Ray - Lets not forget this statement is why we're discussing BEs with you right now... it was a false statement. Get over it... You clearly support the extraction industry or have a dog in that fight because its obvious to anyone looking at the map I provided that this change potentially threaten at least 15 climbing areas. Come up with as many excuses or obfuscate as you will but the facts remain the facts. 

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Which mines were decommissioned as a result of the NM status? I'll wait.

None; they were decommissioned 50+ years ago because at the time they were no longer economically viable - and none of that is why I posted the photo. The photo serves as a reminder of the visual blight that mining operations bring. And don't forget the continuous heavy truck traffic and noise.

Tony B wrote:

The Antiquieites Act did not apply until such time as the area was declared a monument.
BLM lad is fracked all to hell in many places and there are plots with lease areas for resource extraction on them right now.

These are facts and not flexible, despite what you want to believe or argue.  And those always catch up with you.  I recommend google as your solution.

" According to the Utah Bureau of Land Management, there are 23 existing federal oil and gas leases, all at least partially or wholly located within the boundaries, but no permits to drill on those leases, for now. "

Article on the leases

Removing artifacts is a violation of the law regardless of the NM status. Its part of the antiquities act. It applies to any site regardless of whether it is a NM, public land, or even private land. 

Morgan Patterson wrote:

Ray - Lets not forget this statement is why we're discussing BEs with you right now... it was a false statement. Get over it... You clearly support the extraction industry or have a dog in that fight because its obvious to anyone looking at the map I provided that this change potentially threaten at least 15 climbing areas. Come up with as many excuses or obfuscate as you will but the facts remain the facts. 

Motorized vehicles and hunting are restricted under NM status, to name two outdoor activities. The map you posted is of mineral lease locations. There are literally thousands of mineral leases all over the US that have never been mined. If you click the Google link i posted you'll see an example of such where a lease appears close to an artifact site but there is no mining taking place. There is no there. Those leases are not being utilized. Could they in the future? Maybe...or maybe not. Maybe my aunt will get sexual reassignment surgery and become my uncle too...but probably not

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Removing artifacts is a violation of the law regardless of the NM status. Its part of the antiquities act.

Uhhh.  Since when were you talking about artifacts?  Just since you got proven wrong on your previous point, or did I miss some prior mention?
We were talking about mineral extraction/drilling/mining.  Here let me remind you.  You said there was none... but there was, and there are currently unfilled leases, and your causal attribution if fundimentally incorrect.

Ray Pinpillage wrote:  "The antiquities act already prohibited that. There was no drilling or mining in BE to start with and it's already public land."

Dude, it's pretty much over when you get so absurd that a Libertarian corrects you on your anti-government rhetoric.

Tony B wrote:

Uhhh.  Since when were you talking about artifacts?  Just since you got proven wrong on your previous point, or did I miss some prior mention?
We were talking about mineral extraction/drilling/mining.  Here let me remind you.  You said there was none... but there was, and there are currently unfilled leases, and your causal attribution if fundimentally incorrect.

Ray Pinpillage wrote:  "The antiquities act already prohibited that. There was no drilling or mining in BE to start with and it's already public land."

Dude, it's pretty much over when you get so absurd that a Libertarian corrects you on your anti-government rhetoric.

You're free to go back and read the quote I responded to referencing pillaging artifacts. 

Zero chance of prevailing.  OMHO this is just a fund raising scheme.

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Motorized vehicles and hunting are restricted under NM status, to name two outdoor activities.

Stop. I already pointed out that the restrictions are to existing roads and existing hunting areas/times.

 The map you posted is of mineral lease locations. There are literally thousands of mineral leases all over the US that have never been mined. If you click the Google link i posted you'll see an example of such where a lease appears close to an artifact site but there is no mining taking place. There is no there. Those leases are not being utilized. Could they in the future? Maybe...or maybe not.

And once utilized the land is fucked up for centuries. That's why it needs to be stopped before any extractive use is executed.

Marc801 C wrote:

Stop. I already pointed out that the restrictions are to existing roads and existing hunting areas/times.

And once utilized the land is fucked up for centuries. That's why it needs to be stopped before any extractive use is executed.

There is still a Bear Ears National Monument so your non-restriction restrictions still exist in some part. Just not as broadly sweeping as when King Obama waived his scepter. 

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

There is still a Bear Ears National Monument so your non-restriction restrictions still exist in some part. Just not as broadly sweeping as when King Obama waived his scepter. 

Out of facts so we resort to the name calling... at least your intentions/motivations are now clear. This isn't about facts for you its about President Obama. Thank you for finally being forthright.

Morgan Patterson wrote:

Out of facts so we resort to the name calling... at least your intentions/motivations are now clear. This isn't about facts for you its about President Obama. Thank you for finally being forthright.

Kind of ironic given that this thread is really just about the Access Fund vapor locking over its hate for Trump. It's not exactly a mystery.

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Kind of ironic given that this thread is really just about the Access Fund vapor locking over its hate for Trump. It's not exactly a mystery.

Funny, it seemed to me that someone (ahem) was vapor locking about something else.
King Obama?
I was never a fan, and I do have a problem with his famnclub cheering the concentration of power in the executive office, but...
One can not defend Trump in the same breath as that assertion.

As for your "zero percent chance of prevailing" I would not be so sure.  The court should be split on this one, if you happen to understand the cause of action, which has to do with the Antiquities act and the division of powers under article one. But with Gorsich being a fairly constructionist conservative, he's quite likely to go agaist Trump on this one.

Want to bet $100 to charity against me?  I say that the court sides with the plantif here... then again, I'll admit to having a little insider take on it.  Just trying to offer a full disclaimer.  You are welcome to put your money on the line if you are otherwise sure.  If you loose, you join the AF at the $100 level... And we can negotiate who I have to pay to if you win.  If you are a private charity sort of guy, and in favor of the LCO's there is always 'Friends Of Indian Creek' or perhaps the Utah Open Lands Trust (who hold and maintain the climbers campground at Castleton).  I'd happily give you 2:1 odds if you pick one of those, or increase my bet to $500 with 2:1 odds.

Are you really so sure, Ray?

Tony B wrote:

Funny, it seemed to me that someone (ahem) was vapor locking about something else.
King Obama?
I was never a fan, and I do have a problem with his famnclub cheering the concentration of power in the executive office, but...
One can not defend Trump in the same breath as that assertion.

As for your "zero percent chance of prevailing" I would not be so sure.  The court should be split on this one, if you happen to understand the cause of action, which has to do with the Antiquities act and the division of powers under article one. But with Gorsich being a fairly constructionist conservative, he's quite likely to go agaist Trump on this one.

Want to bet $100 to charity against me?  I say that the court sides with the plantif here... then again, I'll admit to having a little insider take on it.  Just trying to offer a full disclaimer.  You are welcome to put your money on the line if you are otherwise sure.  If you loose, you join the AF at the $100 level... And we can negotiate who I have to pay to if you win.  If you are a private charity sort of guy, and in favor of the LCO's there is always 'Friends Of Indian Creek' or perhaps the Utah Open Lands Trust (who hold and maintain the climbers campground at Castleton).  I'd happily give you 2:1 odds if you pick one of those, or increase my bet to $500 with 2:1 odds.

Are you really so sure, Ray?

I'm not defending Trump, I'm not a fan. Much like pressers on a Friday night before a four day weekend, executive orders right before leaving office are highly suspicious. I'd like someone to actually substantiate some of this nonsense. Apparently the mere existence mineral leases is proof that access is going to be lost despite those leases age and the apparent lack of actual mining. 

As to the rest of your post...I don't think you can read. Take your challenge up with the person that made the claim.

Max Supertramp wrote:

Sure it's worthwhile, I never said it wasn't. In your previous post you said it was a significant source of carbon... the facts are it is not. It is a separate discussion from the BE's discussion for many reason. 

I'm not saying climber transport is significant on the global or national scale wrt to carbon output but that as a proportion of a given climber's carbon output, transit to places like IC dominates.   

Hydrocarbon extraction and hydrocarbon purchasing are inextricably linked.   Is it cool to drill up Louisiana, Michigan, the Gulf of Mexico but uncool to drill in IC?   The anti-extraction in IC thing gets pretty muddled by people's participation and implicit enabling of such extraction, so it seems worth asking where it is ok drill and extract hydrocarbons so I can drive back out to my proj for the 45th time.  

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

You're free to go back and read the quote I responded to referencing pillaging artifacts. 

That is NOT the relevant point, and I didn' contest it.
I was focused on when you said THIS:
Ray Pinpillage wrote:  "There was no drilling or mining in BE to start with and it's already public land."

Do you maintain that "There was no drilling or mining in BE to start with" or do you admit that you were wrong?
Do the pictures of the mining facilities and the maps of the federal leases on that property help you with understanding that?

This is what I addressed, and I am not interested in that other topic.
I said you were wrong about the issue of mining/drilling.  
You can not prove that you were not wrong about that by saying that you made some other, unrelated statement which was correct.

As for my bet challenge about the odds of a lawsuit prevailing - if I got that wrong and it was not you, then sorry.
Then I was wrong on that and I will re-issue the bet to the person who made the statement.
I'll look into that.

Tony, don't waste your breathe.  Ray is going to believe what he believes, regardless of the well settled facts to the contrary.