Bye bye Indian Creek!

Holy buckets. This is wild. Go climb a rock 

M Clune wrote:

Holy buckets. This is wild. Go climb a rock 

What a reductive thing to say. Excuse me (and others in this thread) for engaging on the subject and talking about things we care about. A loss of monument protections, while still being under the BLM opens a can of worms that could mean the loss of access.

I don’t think I am. We are tiny specs on a rock. I’ve seen Indian go from a crag to Disney land. As much as I love seeing and being wild and being wild in these places, myself and other climbers have extorted these spots. You feel special cause you jammed .75s for fifty feet, some other dude worked a hell of a day extracting precious minerals, wasn’t easy. And we all eat shit at the end of the day. Hug someone, hell hug two people. The government isn’t gonna do that.

If you’re ever in Sandy Utah I’ll give you one 

Keep telling everyone it’s not political, that it’s a both sides what about ism.

Noah James wrote:

the worldwide celebration when "it" happens

Your lust for violence is appalling 

trailridge wrote:

Your lust for violence is appalling 

Violence against the oppressor is more than justified. Would you not celebrate the death of a nazi? Cuz that’s who we’re talking about here, white supremacists who are running our nation into the ground.

Tony Danza wrote:

Violence against the oppressor is more than justified. Would you not celebrate the death of a nazi? Cuz that’s who we’re talking about here, white supremacists who are running our nation into the ground.

No. I would absolutely not and the true colors of the left are really showing.  

Ugh..the people who voted MAGA are this…and the left is that talk feels so childish and strays from the main point of what’s going on.

As I see it, the management plan for the monument really aimed to keep Bears Ears as is, mostly allowing the same use of the land that was allowed before it was designated a monument, but with checks to make sure increased use doesn’t have a dramatic impact. The main threat of Bears Ears not being designated a monument is mining in the future.  The positive is, as Cory mentioned, there wasn’t much mining going on before Bears Ears became a monument and the back and forth of it being a monument, it not being a monument makes it a really risky investment for companies to want to mine the area.  The negative is new technologies that reduce mining costs will make extraction in Bears Ears more tempting and a potential shift towards nuclear energy could make it worthwhile for companies to get the uranium there in the future. I assume at some point the back and forth of the sizes of both Bears Ears and Escalante will stop by figuring out the legality of reducing monuments designated under the Antiquities Act. Until then, making your voice heard to politicians on what’s important to you/how you will vote and supporting entities that are taking this to court and raising awareness of the issue is what needs to happen.

Also, the entire Bears Ears area is stunning, not just Indian Creek.  Ecologically, native heritage, wildlife, and climbing too..Bears Ears is magical.  

As usual, the Native voices are not heard. 
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/07/16/trumps-order-shrink-bears-ears/

Tony Danza wrote:

The antiquities act is a one way street. Monuments can be created, not destroyed.

“The legal debate centers on the fact that while the Antiquities Act expressly authorizes presidents to establish national monuments, it does not explicitly address whether later presidents may shrink or abolish them.

“My position has long been that the president does not have that authority,” Mark Squillace, professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School, tells TIME. “If you read the statute, the Antiquities Act, it specifically gives the president the authority to reserve monuments that contain historic objects and of scientific interest, but it does not give the president the authority to modify or revoke monuments that have been declared by prior presidents.”

What happens if Donald Trump preserves land that shouldn’t be preserved? I don’t think the president should be allowed to create or destroy the monument designation. It’s problematic to concentrate all this power to one person to make a “forever” decision.

Tony Danza wrote

Violence against the oppressor is more than justified. Would you not celebrate the death of a nazi? Cuz that’s who we’re talking about here, white supremacists who are running our nation into the ground.

If someone commits a crime against me, I want them punished for that crime. If mamadi raised my taxes and I thought it was criminal, I absolutely do not want to kill him. The punishment should be relative to the crime and even the most disingenuous interpretations of Donald Trump have him as a white collar criminal. Your gonna get your own thread shut down if you think executing Donald Trump is justified.

 The punishment should be relative to the crime and even the most disingenuous interpretations of Donald Trump have him as a white collar criminal.

You forgot he's also a rapist and likely pedophile.

Tony Danza wrote:

Violence against the oppressor is more than justified. 

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah, because there have been such instances related to the ‘other side’, anything is justified. (/snark)

Paul S wrote:

Also, the entire Bears Ears area is stunning, not just Indian Creek.  Ecologically, native heritage, wildlife, and climbing too..Bears Ears is magical.  

Escalante is amazing as well. These are truly national treasures. 

Rachael v2 wrote:

That’s functionally a shadow ban. It’s the fastest way to shut down conversation as nobody will see it unless they are already participating. Why is that desirable?

This is an important issue, and it does indeed impact general climbing. 

But when the topic is raised with such partisan cragdog-whistling vitriol -- such as appeared in the OP before it was edited -- there is little hope for the thread to progress with any level of edification or utility.

Only reason I'm even posting again is because Rachael posed a thoughtful response. Thank you.

For what it's worth, because I'm sure some people assume I'm [label/color/direction] -- I vote for whatever candidate best keeps the air clean and the wilderness wild for the next generation.

I think the greater issue here is not climbing specific. In all likelihood Indian creek will probably be fine. But the door is now open. 

There are a lot of beautiful world class non-climbing areas that could be tainted. People travel from all over the world to see the slot canyons, cave dwellings and landscapes of southern Utah. These places are special. The fact that someone is opening the door for them to be destroyed for a quick buck is frankly bullshit.

This argument that “it is not cost effective to resource extract there and therefore we should not worry” does not hold water. If that is the case, then there is no reason to remove these areas from the monument. 

Flood the USFS with your comments. Call, email your congress persons.  Be vocal and committed. Silence is consent.

The average utahn also wants to be able to rip around on their atv through the wilderness, it's not all about mining. It's mostly been proven that the oil shale deposits are fairly worthless unless the government seriously subsidizes it.

M M wrote:

It's mostly been proven that the oil shale deposits are fairly worthless unless the government seriously subsidizes it.

Which the US government happily does and will happily continue to do. It's called free market capitalism: block cheap, profitable, renewable energy projects and spend hundreds of billions on fossil fuels energy subsidies.