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

the schmuck wrote:

You cannot purchase public lands. One can only lease a right to extract/graze. 

You can lease some public lands for more than extraction or grazing. Many ski resorts in CO lease forest service land for their terrain. I would estimate that 90% of my home mountain's terrain (meaning excluding real estate property) is USFS land.

I'm not sure if some kind of similar agreement could be reached for climbing, but I would guess that it would be too expensive as (most) climbers aren't actually turning a profit from their access 

There is no commercial interest in climbing, unlike ski resorts. 

Fat Dad wrote:

I'm not clear about the point you were trying to make.  So are you saying that because this was not part of the former Bears Ears, even if it is in what was formerly Grand Staircase, that it's not big deal?

You don't strike me as a particularly bright person. I know that sounds like an ad hominem but the disconnect between Escalante and Bear Ears is pretty obvious (hint; it's in the title of this thread).

Earlier in this thread it was pointed out there are 50 year old mining leases in the area that was called, for a single year, BENM. It's hardly the "beginning" if there were already mining leases. Nevermind that they have been inactive longer than many participants in this thread have been alive. Also, 200 acres is literally not a big deal. The Obama administration BENM (which is not Escalante in case you don't know) was 1.3M acres, 200 acres is a rounding error.

I'll ask again, how is the Access Fund lawsuit going?

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

 Also, 200 acres is literally not a big deal. The Obama administration BENM (which is not Escalante in case you don't know) was 1.3M acres, 200 acres is a rounding error.

Doesn't it kinda matter *where* the 200 acres are located? Doesn't it matter that "only" 200 acres can permanently alter and mar a viewshed? Doesn't it matter that the 200 acres can easily and likely contain a huge amount of significant archeology artifacts?

I'll ask again, how is the Access Fund lawsuit going?

It's been filed - don't know if it's on the docket yet.

Here's the 74 page filing: ​https://www.accessfund.org/uploads/2017.12.06-Bears-Ears-Complaint-FILED.pdf​​​

Marc801 C wrote: Doesn't it kinda matter *where* the 200 acres are located? Doesn't it matter that "only" 200 acres can permanently alter and mar a viewshed? Doesn't it matter that the 200 acres can easily and likely contain a huge amount of significant archeology artifacts?

It's been filed - don't know if it's on the docket yet.

Here's the 74 page filing: https://www.accessfund.org/uploads/2017.12.06-Bears-Ears-Complaint-FILED.pdf

So you're saying a mining permit is going to be issued where there are significant archeology artifacts? Forgive my skepticism, but well, I'm skeptical. 

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

So you're saying a mining permit is going to be issued where there are significant archeology artifacts? Forgive my skepticism, but well, I'm skeptical. 

Clearly they are trying to cover up alien artifacts so this seems ideal to me!

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

So you're saying a mining permit is going to be issued where there are significant archeology artifacts? Forgive my skepticism, but well, I'm skeptical. 

Of the three things I mentioned, *that's* the one you latch on to? As climbers and lovers and stewards of the outdoors, the first two should be reason enough.

Regarding the artifacts in both BENM and GSENM, only a small fraction have been discovered and cataloged, so yes, mining permits are issued where there are significant artifacts. Not all mining operations discover them until destroyed.

Marc801 C wrote:

Of the three things I mentioned, *that's* the one you latch on to? As climbers and lovers and stewards of the outdoors, the first two should be reason enough.

Regarding the artifacts in both BENM and GSENM, only a small fraction have been discovered and cataloged, so yes, mining permits are issued where there are significant artifacts. Not all mining operations discover them until destroyed.

How can there be significant artifacts present if they are undiscovered? 

I have to admit, I admire some of you people's commitment to hair-on-fire crisis but I'm just not seeing it. It's hard to take you seriously when you present "undiscovered artifacts" as the excuse to prevent the use of our natural resources. Similarly, it's hard to take you seriously when you tell me 1.3M acres of land are in jeopardy from nonexistent mining and public access should be restricted. Frankly I expect more from an organization calling itself the "Access Fund".

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

How can there be significant artifacts present if they are undiscovered? 

I hope you just mistyped this. 

Alicia Sokolowski wrote:

I hope you just mistyped this. 

No he typed it correct you just aren't understanding what he typed.

You are saying it is stupid because you think he is saying that undiscovered artifacts means there are not any there.

He is really saying that you can't 100% say there is an artifact until it is discovered. So you can't assume every place in the world has artifacts and can't touch the land because of it. If they were mining and found an artifact they would likely stop the mining to collect the artifact.

ViperScale . wrote:

If they were mining and found an artifact they would likely stop the mining to collect the artifact.

Yeah, forgive my skepticism but, well I’m skeptical. 

ViperScale . wrote:

No he typed it correct you just aren't understanding what he typed.

You are saying it is stupid because you think he is saying that undiscovered artifacts means there are not any there.

He is really saying that you can't 100% say there is an artifact until it is discovered. So you can't assume every place in the world has artifacts and can't touch the land because of it. If they were mining and found an artifact they would likely stop the mining to collect the artifact.

I’m pretty sure she understood exactly what he’s saying. The problem is that he keeps warping the argument to make it sound like he’s right. 

Marc is pointing out that this is an area where artifacts have been found therefore it is likely there are more. Ray changes it to no artifacts found in the area. There fore drill baby drill. He adds in the classic conservative tactic to add the “hair on fire” comment to make liberals look like they’re making way too big of a deal out of it. Like all liberals are crazy and unrealistically passionate about everything. 
Alicia is calling him out in this bullshit debate tactic and logic, but if I’m wrong Alicia by all means correct me. 

Marc801 C wrote: Of the three things I mentioned, *that's* the one you latch on to? As climbers and lovers and stewards of the outdoors, the first two should be reason enough.
Regarding the artifacts in both BENM and GSENM, only a small fraction have been discovered and cataloged, so yes, mining permits are issued where there are significant artifacts. Not all mining operations discover them until destroyed.

With his logic, he thinks that  he couldn't be struck by lightning because he hasn't been struck by lightning, and is oblivious to the obvious. Or, if a nugget of gold were found in a stream, he would say that there would not be anymore because the additional gold hadn't been found yet. And by his logic, they shouldn't mine this (Bears Ears) area because the additional resources haven't been extracted yet.

mediocre wrote:

I’m pretty sure she understood exactly what he’s saying. The problem is that he keeps warping the argument to make it sound like he’s right. 

Marc is pointing out that this is an area where artifacts have been found therefore it is likely there are more. Ray changes it to no artifacts found in the area. There fore drill baby drill. He adds in the classic conservative tactic to add the “hair on fire” comment to make liberals look like they’re making way too big of a deal out of it. Like all liberals are crazy and unrealistically passionate about everything. 
Alicia is calling him out in this bullshit debate tactic and logic, but if I’m wrong Alicia by all means correct me. 

Quick question, in the search for undiscovered artifacts, who steels or damages more antiquities, miners or archeologists? 

mediocre wrote:

I’m pretty sure she understood exactly what he’s saying. The problem is that he keeps warping the argument to make it sound like he’s right. 

Marc is pointing out that this is an area where artifacts have been found therefore it is likely there are more. Ray changes it to no artifacts found in the area. There fore drill baby drill. He adds in the classic conservative tactic to add the “hair on fire” comment to make liberals look like they’re making way too big of a deal out of it. Like all liberals are crazy and unrealistically passionate about everything. 
Alicia is calling him out in this bullshit debate tactic and logic, but if I’m wrong Alicia by all means correct me. 

You said it far better than I could! 

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Quick question, in the search for undiscovered artifacts, who steels or damages more antiquities, miners or archeologists? 

That’s a good question and historically I’d say a good one.  Although I would argue that clandestine archeologists do a better job at not destroying the environment around them than any miner. 

We’re talking about losing access to an area that also holds cultural significance to certain populations bc of destructive mining practices that, let’s face it, the proceeds will ultimately not go to those who care about the land. 

mediocre wrote:

That’s a good question and historically I’d say a good one.  Although I would argue that clandestine archeologists do a better job at not destroying the environment around them than any miner. 

We’re talking about losing access to an area that also holds cultural significance to certain populations bc of destructive mining practices that, let’s face it, the proceeds will ultimately not go to those who care about the land. 

Then we agree on something. There wasn't much substance to posted article that was supposed to be the "beginning". Maybe we can get some steak to go with all of that sizzle?

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

Quick question, in the search for undiscovered artifacts, who steels or damages more antiquities, miners or archeologists? 

Hmm, the archeologists with non-destructive imaging techniques and training on how to extract artifacts without damage or scrapers and drills operated by Joe Blow? But you say, Joe Blow can be trained by Hail Coroporate to identify these things and we get a twofer, mining and artifacts, shoot dang that’s some sharp thinking. The problem is that Joe Blow operates mining equipment in the middle of nowhere because he’s not a sharp enough tack to do otherwise. Don’t get me wrong, I love Joe Blow (used to work with him back in the day) but fuck no is he less damaging to any kind of artifact less than a trained archeologist and if you’re even debating this then you’re a dipshit. 

physnchips wrote:

Hmm, the archeologists with non-destructive imaging techniques and training on how to extract artifacts without damage or scrapers and drills operated by Joe Blow? But you say, Joe Blow can be trained by Hail Coroporate to identify these things and we get a twofer, mining and artifacts, shoot dang that’s some sharp thinking. The problem is that Joe Blow operates mining equipment in the middle of nowhere because he’s not a sharp enough tack to do otherwise. Don’t get me wrong, I love Joe Blow (used to work with him back in the day) but fuck no is he less damaging to any kind of artifact less than a trained archeologist and if you’re even debating this then you’re a dipshit. 

I think the argument was that pseudo-archeologists who safely extract artifacts but then steal them are gonna do more damage than mining. Still not a great argument IMO.

eli poss wrote:

I think the argument was that pseudo-archeologists who safely extract artifacts but then steal them....

Recall that not all artifacts are pot shards, arrowheads, and basket parts. The area is also filled with structures which are subject to destruction from nearby vibrations. Also, many of them, in particular kivas and some dwellings, are totally filled in with 1200+ years of dirt and debris. It takes a trained eye to spot these in an undisturbed area. A great example is Range Creek Canyon which has been swarmed over by archeologists and anthropologists ever since the Wilcox family donated it to the state (as a bequeath to the U o fU). Yet, 18 dwellings were not discovered until a lightening caused fire burned off the overbrush.