BLM banning roped activities in Moab

The BLM is proposing a ban of all roped activities in a huge part of the desert outside Moab. Please take 5 minutes to send an email asking them to reconsider.

kstevens@blm.gov
priddle@blm.gov

Taylor Palmer wrote: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/projectSummary.do?methodName=renderDefaultProjectSummary&projectId=1504945

The BLM is proposing a ban of all roped activities in a huge part of the desert outside Moab. Please take 5 minutes to send an email asking them to reconsider.

kstevens@blm.gov

priddle@blm.gov

Any suggestions/recommendations on the email wording?

Gumby King wrote:

Any suggestions/recommendations on the email wording?

A couple questions that I personally have, trying to stay as neutral and understanding as possible:

Exactly what activities and exactly where are affecting what wild life and how? Can you provide a study for that?

If wildlife is being affected, why not do specific cliff and specific seasonal closures, just as has been done in other areas in the past?

What is it exactly that climbers, highliners, and base jumpers are doing to affect the wildlife in such a negative way to be banned without warning, that commercial rafting outfits, mountain bikers, hikers, dirt bikers, jeepers, side-by-side’s and AIRPLANES LANDING IN THE CANYON aren’t doing and thereby allowing continued access for them?

Yeah I don’t know enough about this to really have an opinion but it does seem odd that they would ban climbing completely.

Agenda 2030, the reason for the season 

Of course, I don't support this ban, but Feds gonna Fed. No Federal agency gives a crap about climbing. It puzzles me that so many climbers think that the government will back recreation on public lands. I'm certainly not advocating selling off public lands to private owners, but I am questioning the cheerleading that I see so often from climbers and recreation advocacy groups towards increased Federal control over public land.

I feel this has more to do with natural resources than anything else. They are probably just using wildlife as a guise to get people out so they can start mining.

There's already a thread on this, consider deleting and consolidating...
https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/118972888/disallowing-roped-and-aerial-activities-in-mineral-and-hell-roaring-canyons-comm

Ted Pinson wrote: Yeah I don’t know enough about this to really have an opinion but it does seem odd that they would ban climbing completely.

Yeah, those were my thoughts which is why I was asking for some direction.  I suppose Access Fund will ask for a petition in the near future as well.  I would like to understand more to make a worthwhile email beyond "Save Climbing You Idiots!"

Dylan Pike wrote:No Federal agency gives a crap about climbing. ..

Or U.N. agency.

.... but I am questioning the cheerleading that I see so often from climbers and recreation advocacy groups towards increased Federal control over public land.

Exactly! Most people don’t think that deeply And I would add gear companies like Patagonia. National Parks were elitist from the inception 

I love hell roaring and will be sad if this comes to pass.Climbing traffic in these areas is low. I can't understand why this would be disallowed but the airstrip is exempt. The popularity of the highlines and rope swings etc seems to have been growing but it is very strange that a more traditional sport such as rock climbing is included. Is there a population of an endangered bird species we have never heard of living only in these 2 canyons?

Ty Harlacker wrote: I feel this has more to do with natural resources than anything else. They are probably just using wildlife as a guise to get people out so they can start mining.

Interestingly enough.. 
https://rockandice.com/climbing-news/moab-climbing-threatened-by-massive-oil-and-gas-lease-sale/

more comments on the other thread

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/118972888/disallowing-roped-and-aerial-activities-in-mineral-and-hell-roaring-canyons-comm

I have worked with public agencies on projects like these.  I haven't worked with BLM, but I gather from the website that they are currently doing their scope for a NEPA assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. They absolutely will need to justify that they have considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed action of a blanket ban on access. Asking them to justify why seasonal closures are not sufficient, and how climber impacts differ from other recreationists' impacts, are great questions.

Also, if there is an organized group like the Access Fund working on this issue, your best bet is to work with them. They'll hopefully be talking to the BLM staff who are putting together the planning documents, and can let you know key points in the process to show up / speak up, and what to say.

I'd also recommend politely asking the project lead, Kathleen Stevens kstevens@blm.gov for a timeline of public involvement in the process.

My experience with federal workers is that they typically do care about the lands they manage, and they do care about the people who use those lands. An agency like BLM has to balance multiple interests and mandates - recreation, environmental protection, extraction, concessionaires, local communities whose economies may depend on things that happen on federal land, tribal rights, etc. Your input will be more effective if you treat them like humans who care about their job rather than evil federales who are scheming to take all the fun away.

Taylor Palmer wrote: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/projectSummary.do?methodName=renderDefaultProjectSummary&projectId=1504945

The BLM is proposing a ban of all roped activities in a huge part of the desert outside Moab. Please take 5 minutes to send an email asking them to reconsider.

kstevens@blm.gov
priddle@blm.gov

kstevens@blm.gov
priddle@blm.gov

Sounds like the BLM officers need to go huck themselves and maybe they'll understand why these specific canyons are so good!!!

L Kap wrote: I have worked with public agencies on projects like these.  I haven't worked with BLM, but I gather from the website that they are currently doing their scope for a NEPA assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. They absolutely will need to justify that they have considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed action of a blanket ban on access. Asking them to justify why seasonal closures are not sufficient, and how climber impacts differ from other recreationists' impacts, are great questions.

Also, if there is an organized group like the Access Fund working on this issue, your best bet is to work with them. They'll hopefully be talking to the BLM staff who are putting together the planning documents, and can let you know key points in the process to show up / speak up, and what to say.

I'd also recommend politely asking the project lead, Kathleen Stevens kstevens@blm.gov for a timeline of public involvement in the process.

My experience with federal workers is that they typically do care about the lands they manage, and they do care about the people who use those lands. An agency like BLM has to balance multiple interests and mandates - recreation, environmental protection, extraction, concessionaires, local communities whose economies may depend on things that happen on federal land, tribal rights, etc. Your input will be more effective if you treat them like humans who care about their job rather than evil federales who are scheming to take all the fun away.

Submit your comments and give facts with evidence. Also list possible alternatives, such as specific cliff and seasonal closures. Comments like "climbing is awesome so dont ban it" and "suck it feds" aren't considered in the process. The open houses that are held for these sort of decisions are worth attending if you are serious about fighting this sort of thing. Being able to directly ask officials questions can be very beneficial, no matter which side of the issue you are on. 

Dylan Pike wrote: Of course, I don't support this ban, but Feds gonna Fed. No Federal agency gives a crap about climbing. It puzzles me that so many climbers think that the government will back recreation on public lands. I'm certainly not advocating selling off public lands to private owners, but I am questioning the cheerleading that I see so often from climbers and recreation advocacy groups towards increased Federal control over public land.

You've got it completely backwards, son.

When Republicans gain control of the government and Department of the Interior they start looting public lands for their friends in the private sector who pay pennies on the dollar for oil and minerals.

When Democratic administrations gain control they create things like the Bears Ear National Monument to save it from drilling and mining.

Its not the "Feds" its the wrong kind of politician at which you should direct your ire.

You (we) are the only ones standing in the way of public lands being sold off to the lowest bidder ($2 an acre) for a "lease" for mining or drilling under the Trump Administration.

Feds gonna fed. So right.

"The majority of the parcels up for auction will likely go for the minimum bid of $2 per acre."  I'd be in for 5000 acres if anyone else is interested in pooling funds.

And fuck this administration, just another thing in a long line of environmental degradation and lining their friends pockets   

Nick Votto wrote: "The majority of the parcels up for auction will likely go for the minimum bid of $2 per acre."  I'd be in for 5000 acres if anyone else is interested in pooling funds.

And fuck this administration, just another thing in a long line of environmental degradation and lining their friends pockets   

In case someone gets this idea, be careful. It is a felony to make a bid on a lease without an intent to extract/graze. People have gone to prison over this. 

hillbilly hijinks wrote:

You've got it completely backwards, son.

When Republicans gain control of the government and Department of the Interior they start looting public lands for their friends in the private sector who pay pennies on the dollar of oil and minerals.

When Democratic administrations gain control they create things like the Bears Ear National Monument to save it from drilling and mining.

Its not the "Feds" its the wrong kind of politician at which you should direct your ire.

You (we) are the only ones standing in the way of public lands being sold off to the lowest bidder ($2 an acre) for a "lease" for mining or drilling under the Trump Administration.

I don't care one way or the other which party is in control of the government. They both try to restrict access and I don't support either. The Republicans want to auction off mineral leases, which limits access, and the Democrats want limit access for archaeological/environmental/liability reasons. Like I said, I don't want public lands to go away, but I'd love to see Federal agencies with no authority to do much of anything.

I'm sure you disagree, but I also believe that it's important to have domestic resource production capability. We can't rely on looting other people's countries to satisfy our demand for resources forever.