Mountain Project Logo

Obama declares Bears Ears National Monument in southern Utah


Original Post
Super Fluke · · Earth · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 186

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4675012-155/mike-lee-staffer-says-bears-ears

Ted Pinson · · Chicago, IL · Joined Jul 2014 · Points: 190

Thanks, Obama!

JohnSol · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2015 · Points: 15

Yay!!!!!

CASA Climbing Assn. of So. AZ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2015 · Points: 133

Yes!!!!! Heck, yeah, Obama!

Bridger Huhn · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2016 · Points: 0

We love you Obama!

Super Fluke · · Earth · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 186

I read that they will be working with the Indian tribes in the area to layout the regulations of this area.
What kind of regulations are expected and will there be any that will restrict climbing or bolting in this area?
Will existing mining contracts be grandfathered for future exploration?

A response from someone with knowledge of the Bears Ear land battle would be greatly appreciated.

Zach Joing · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2011 · Points: 60
Super Fluke wrote:I read that they will be working with the Indian tribes in the area to layout the regulations of this area. What kind of regulations are expected and will there be any that will restrict climbing or bolting in this area? Will existing mining contracts be grandfathered for future exploration? A response from someone with knowledge of the Bears Ear land battle would be greatly appreciated.
+1
Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 6,480

This is a mixed bag of good and not so bad..as usual.

Bradley Pazian · · New York, New York · Joined Dec 2014 · Points: 0

So I have spent the last hour trying to understand why people are so opposed to this. People keep saying that it is going to ruin the way of life of the locals and will pour in tourists (which is a bad thing???) to the area. Am I missing something or is this just a greed issue where a few people can get rich off the land and they want to block the public from enjoying it.

ryan laird · · Denver, CO · Joined Sep 2008 · Points: 1,880

This R&I article sums up the situation:
rockandice.com/climbing-new…

The Access Fund has released a news release on the National Monument
accessfund.org/news-and-eve…

txclimber · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2013 · Points: 10
Bradley Pazian wrote:So I have spent the last hour trying to understand why people are so opposed to this. People keep saying that it is going to ruin the way of life of the locals and will pour in tourists (which is a bad thing???) to the area. Am I missing something or is this just a greed issue where a few people can get rich off the land and they want to block the public from enjoying it.
To try to understand this you must think of the citizens of Monticello, Bluff, and Blanding--not Moab. For years Moab has embraced tourism and the dollars that come with it. The other three have purposefully and staunchly avoided this direction. For some it was to preserve the importance of their religion in their community. For others it was simply the small town feel and community atmosphere. Anyone who has witnessed the changes in Moab over the last decade can surely appreciate these concerns. (Jeep Week I'm looking at you!)

For many of us, these destinations are a great place to roll into and have a great time--a moment in time. We can then go back to our regular lives. For those locals that see round after round of folks rolling in, it can blend into a maddening cacophony of perpetual traffic and belligerence, with no chance for a "regular life".

To further explain, the towns surrounding Bears Ears are old mining towns. Many of the locals, long for the glory days when their economies were booming and many of them held well paying mining jobs. They believe the new monument will prevent the possibility of those days ever returning. I believe their hope is misunderstood anyway. Modern mining companies do not hire locals to work as the techniques and equipment have become so highly specialized that mining companies have trained crews that move from site to site with very little benefit to the local job market.

To sum it up you have a blend of some of the locals being concerned that their intentionally small town community atmosphere will become corrupted and others feeling that their economic opportunities have been taken from them. I can confirm that the overwhelming majority of these local citizens have been against this monument for years. Only time will tell if their fears are realized.
Roy Suggett · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 6,480

^ Well said.

Allen Sanderson · · Oootah · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 1,135

FWIW the proclamation specifically notes rock climbing and canyoneering as two recreational activities.

G R · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2015 · Points: 65
txclimber wrote: stuff
Maybe so. But in the long run this protects the land in a way that'll be far more durable and sustainable. These towns may change, but in the long run it'll be for the better, both of the areas in the monument themselves and ultimately the economic viability of the towns themselves.
nruea · · . . . CO · Joined Feb 2010 · Points: 338
Allen Sanderson wrote:FWIW the proclamation specifically notes rock climbing and canyoneering as two recreational activities.
Yeah, but the approaches won't likely be as reasonable.
nruea · · . . . CO · Joined Feb 2010 · Points: 338
Bradley Pazian wrote:So I have spent the last hour trying to understand why people are so opposed to this. People keep saying that it is going to ruin the way of life of the locals and will pour in tourists (which is a bad thing???) to the area. Am I missing something or is this just a greed issue where a few people can get rich off the land and they want to block the public from enjoying it.
And me, why people are so excited about this designation?

The GGPA, DCPA, DC Wilderness, and the NBNM was already protecting many of the areas deemed "sensitive", mostly for archaeological resources.
And then you had GCRA which is a contradictive, paradoxical mess, which apparently forbids climbing btw. . . but then it's up to the acting Superintendent (political poker anyone?).
Aside from all those there is CNP.
Oh, and let's not forget the Indian Reservation(s) controlling some of that land - Navajo and Ute I believe.

For me, the last thing we need down there are paved roads and Visitor Centers and parking areas and doubling, quadrupling, whatevering the amount of traffic/people in this beautiful, "sensitive", undeveloped and rather pristine part of UT.
On top of that, neither the local people nor the State wanted it.
G R · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2015 · Points: 65
CLandis wrote: And me, why people are so excited about this designation? The DCPA was already protecting many of the areas deemed "sensitive", mostly for archaeological resources. And then you had GCRA which is a contradictive, paradoxical mess, which apparently forbids climbing btw. . . but then it's up to the acting Superintendent (political poker anyone?). Aside from those two there is CNP. For me, the last thing we need down there are paved roads and Visitor Centers and parking areas and doubling, quadrupling, whatevering the amount of traffic/people in this beautiful, "sensitive", undeveloped and rather pristine part of UT. On top of that, neither the local people nor the State wanted it.
Because you want to be able to enjoy it, but you don't want other people to?
nruea · · . . . CO · Joined Feb 2010 · Points: 338

Huh?
That's why you're so excited about this designation?

G R · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2015 · Points: 65

I'm excited that I'll be able to keep enjoying it for the foreseeable future. I don't trust either state or federal republicans when it comes to land preservation.

nruea · · . . . CO · Joined Feb 2010 · Points: 338

Says the guy from New York City. . . . Have you spent any time down there?

Dude, you can enjoy it all you want, right now. . . been this way for decades. Your evil Republicans have neither closed it nor destroyed it.

I was down there last month (camping, hiking, climbing for over a week), and didn't see a single Republican trying to shoo me away.

Woodson · · Park City, Ut. · Joined May 2009 · Points: 165

Says the guy from Colorado.

Really, this is a matter of the predominant political party from Utah not giving a shit about their own land, or people.
The B.E. has been proposed for quite some time, with time for the State of Utah to come up with a plan for protecting the sacred lands, the Public Lands Initiative. However, the PLI was dismissed in Congress. So, Obama did what any Utah politician didn't have the brains, or balls to do-create a just National Monument, and protect the lands for future generations.

I am glad Obama designated the B.E., and it will do a ton of good for not only the Navajo and other ethnicities, but the economy as well. Anyone taken a drive thru Monticello or Blanding lately? It's not exactly 'booming'. Mining and oil aren't particularly the answer either, as previously stated. There wouldn't be wind farms at the foot of the Abajos if the economy was booming, or if the mining or oil industries were thriving in the vicinity as well.

The Senators and Reps from Utah had their rebuttals, and they were inconclusive. I'm glad that we have a President who actually gives a shit about the environment. At least for a few more days.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply