Mountain Project Logo

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

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
j sittler wrote:

FLPMA gives the president the power over some lands (depending how they were created) but FLPMA notably does NOT give the president the power to undue National Monuments designated through the Antiquities Act. And while other presidents have reduced lands, it has always been on a much smaller scale, and there was usually a national security interest (i.e. shrinking monuments in the pacific northwest during WWII because we needed lumber). It certainly is not a cut and dried case, but the changes made by Trump were unprecedented and so a ruling reversing his decisions (which were also not supported by any semblance of a record) would not be a ridiculous judicial decision 

Uranium is a critical ingredient in our national security. 

Anonymous · · Unknown Hometown · Joined unknown · Points: 0
j sittler wrote:

FLPMA gives the president the power over some lands (depending how they were created) but FLPMA notably does NOT give the president the power to undue National Monuments designated through the Antiquities Act. And while other presidents have reduced lands, it has always been on a much smaller scale, and there was usually a national security interest (i.e. shrinking monuments in the pacific northwest during WWII because we needed lumber). It certainly is not a cut and dried case, but the changes made by Trump were unprecedented and so a ruling reversing his decisions (which were also not supported by any semblance of a record) would not be a ridiculous judicial decision 

And obama's creation of said lands was crazy massive compared to others so you have both sides of the issue.

Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60
ViperScale . wrote:

And obama's creation of said lands was crazy massive compared to others so you have both sides of the issue.

Obama approved what the interested parties had been debating and outlining for years.  This was not an random act, nor is it out of proportion to what other presidents have done.  What Trump did by underdoing an act of his predecessor is "crazy massive".    

Steve Tarnowski · · Aztec, NM · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 15

I wrote this up previously for a different audience (my facebook page) right after Trump's decision to reduce the size of the monument but I think the information is still relevant to this discussion so I have pasted it here:

The Bears' Ears monument designation process began in 2010 with the formation of the nonprofit Utah Diné Bikéyah ("the people's sacred lands" in Navajo). The group published a book advocating for federal protection (in the form of a National Conservation Area, to be co-managed by the Navajo) for the area surrounding the Bears' Ears, an area containing literally hundreds of thousands of cultural sites (petroglyphs, pictographs, cliff dwellings, artifacts and graves). Over the next two years this group circulated the book among legislators and land management groups at the state and federal level. In 2013, Utah Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz announced they wanted to sponsor a land-use bill to solve controversies between conservation groups and people who wanted to develop the area. The Congressmen announced they wanted to include the Bears' Ears region in this proposal and dubbed this process the Public Lands Initiative (PLI). Later in  2013, Utah Diné Bikéyah presented a full proposal for the protection of the Bears' Ears at a public meeting for the PLI, including proposed borders for an area of 1.9 million acres. Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz did not respond to the proposal, and in 2014 the group contacted Sally Jewel, then-Secretary of the Interior, requesting protection for the Bears' Ears in the form of a National Monument. In 2015, the Navajo, Hopi, Ute Mountain Ute, Ute Indian and Pueblo of Zuni formed the Inter-Tribal Coalition to advocate for federal protection of the Bears' Ears. This really gets the ball rolling and the movement gets a ton of public attention when Patagonia releases the Defined by the Line short (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZar1V5GnYs). Meetings begin to work on a Monument Proposal for President Obama, which was completed in late 2015. 

 The Proposal had the following provisions: Honor existing mining claims, but don't allow new ones; continue the grazing and logging system in place at the time; Utah hunting and fishing regulations apply unchanged; only allow motorized travel on designated roads; and non-motorized vehicle travel (mountain-biking) only on designated trails.

 Following these developments, the Utah Congressman released their PLI plan. Long story short the plan was opposed by the Inter-Tribal Coalition because it did not include co-management by the tribes, and only proposed protections for 1.39 million acres. The PLI was also opposed by the National Parks Service (https://www.npca.org/articles/1320-position-on-hr-5780-utah-public-lands-initiative), and conservationist groups like the Grand Canyon Trust (https://www.npca.org/articles/1320-position-on-hr-5780-utah-public-lands-initiative) and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (https://suwa.org/bishops-grand-bargain-grand-bust-2/). It also received negative reception in the local papers (http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3602768&itype=CMSID) for being more of a development bill than a conservation bill. 

 In July 2016, Sally Jewell came to Bluff, UT, where she (and I) heard from tribal members, conservationists and local Utahans on what they thought about these proposals. At the end of December 2016, Congress went into recess, having never voted on the PLI, and President Obama signed the Monument Declaration that I encourage you to read because it describes the places that are being protected and the motivations for protecting them (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/proclamation-establishment-bears-ears-national-monument). Notably, the Obama administration established Bears' Ears as a monument of 1.35 million acres, more in line with the boundaries of the PLI proposal, but with the protections stated above. These are not radical protections! (Full disclosure, I wrote a paper arguing that the federal government isn't obligated to honor existing mining claims when increasing protections on public lands). Predictably, the Utah state government started asking for a repeal of the monument from the newly elected Trump administration almost immediately, and Trump answered their call today. 

 The Utahans who don't support the monument talk about how the designation was a federal land-grab and an infringement on their state rights, but from my perspective they have it exactly backwards. Utah, like many states in the West, is largely federal land. Moreover, it's been federal land since it has been a part of the United States (granted it's a bit more complicated than this but for the most part this is accurate; read here for more https://www.nytimes.com/…/why-the-government-owns-so-much-l… http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3365969&itype=CMSID). This land can be managed in different ways, under different agencies with varying allowed uses - from least restrictive (BLM - the land of many uses) to pretty restrictive (different agencies can manage wilderness areas which can have pretty strict protections). The Bears' Ears monument designation is essentially just a re-categorization of federal land to reflect the cultural, scenic and recreational value of these areas to the tribes, Utahans and all Americans. The federal government has long run a subsidization of mining, ranching and farming on public lands in the West, but when the government makes these types of sales or leases, they are giving certain individuals rights on that land, at the expense of every other American. Through a more critical lens, oil and gas development and mineral leasing on public land in Utah is pushed by Utah politicians for the enrichment of themselves, certain parts of their constituency and/or their donors. The laws and policies that make this possible made sense when we were settling the West, but they are relics of a different age. Changing attitudes about the use of public lands (from trying to get rid of it originally to wanting to preserve and protect, and having the government act in a stewardship role) have resulted in increased protections of public land through re-designations such as this one.

Edit: Fixed the links

Will Handy · · Denver, CO · Joined Aug 2016 · Points: 10

Excellent write-up Steve. Thanks for sharing that background.

20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346

So MP and friends gave the AF stacks of cash to help fight the good fight based on their word that they were going to lead the rebel army straight into the capitol. Now that we are full-swing, what happened to all this relentless legal killing that they were talking about? I demand at least one episode of Law and Order covering the lawsuit. Anything less would just be gross negligence.

mediocre · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 0
20 kN wrote:

So MP and friends gave the AF stacks of cash to help fight the good fight based on their word that they were going to lead the rebel army straight into the capitol. Now that we are full-swing, what happened to all this relentless legal killing that they were talking about? I demand at least one episode of Law and Order covering the lawsuit. Anything less would just be gross negligence.

I think they’re just waiting for Ice-T to get back from vaca. 

djh860 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2014 · Points: 110
ViperScale . wrote:

https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm

Technically the act doesn't explicitly give him the power to remove or doesn't ban him from removing a park. However history has other presidents who have removed park lands so... to ban Trump from doing it would mean they need to go back and reverse the removal other presidents have done.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 gives the president the ability to remove lands.

I've since read manystories where public ;lands have been turned back to private use.

Steve Tarnowski · · Aztec, NM · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 15
djh860 wrote:

I've since read manystories where public ;lands have been turned back to private use.

DJH, I want to flag that public land is rarely "turned BACK to private use."  Typically, lands in the West have been public lands since the United States acquired them from the French, Spanish, Mexicans or Indians

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
20 kN wrote:

So MP and friends gave the AF stacks of cash to help fight the good fight based on their word that they were going to lead the rebel army straight into the capitol. Now that we are full-swing, what happened to all this relentless legal killing that they were talking about? I demand at least one episode of Law and Order covering the lawsuit. Anything less would just be gross negligence.

You know what court calendars are like right now, yes?

djh860 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2014 · Points: 110
Steve Tarnowski wrote:

DJH, I want to flag that public land is rarely "turned BACK to private use."  Typically, lands in the West have been public lands since the United States acquired them from the French, Spanish, Mexicans or Indians

The fact remains that I have read on such instances happening .

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
20 kN wrote:

So MP and friends gave the AF stacks of cash to help fight the good fight based on their word that they were going to lead the rebel army straight into the capitol. Now that we are full-swing, what happened to all this relentless legal killing that they were talking about? I demand at least one episode of Law and Order covering the lawsuit. Anything less would just be gross negligence.

The brief was filed.  The case is in waiting.
Here is some updates on that:
https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-events/news/the-fight-for-bears-ears-is-just-beginning

Likewise, last I knew, HR 4532 was awaiting a hearing, but has not been scheduled for a vote.

Steve Skarvinko · · SLC, UT · Joined Nov 2011 · Points: 25
Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60

^^^
Steve, c'mon.  Isn't this just returning the land to native Utahans, even if those locals are really just a Canadian mining company?  It's pretty much the same thing, right?

Let's see how quickly they can get things moving.  Haven't there been lawsuits filed to rescind Trump's earlier rescission?  I suspect that given the irreparable harm that mining exacts on a landscape that an injunction will likely be issued to preserve the status quo until the courts can iron this out.  At least that's what should happen...

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Steve Skarvinko wrote: And so it begins: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622128554/firm-prepares-to-mine-land-previously-protected-as-a-national-monument

Oh, But who could have possibly predicted such an unexpected outcome here?
(wink)

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
Steve Skarvinko wrote: And so it begins: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622128554/firm-prepares-to-mine-land-previously-protected-as-a-national-monument

200 acres, not in Bears Ears, and they don't have permits. Yeah, that's quite a beginning.


How's the Access Fund lawsuit going?
Paul Coakley · · KY · Joined Dec 2015 · Points: 25

Here's a great comparison for thought.
In Red River Gorge, KY the Red River Climbing Collation has pooled money from climbers to purchase a shared interest in property.  The interest is shared with oil companies who want access to drill in the area.  The climbers gain access to cliff line via oil company roads.  Both sides are "winning" in an area called PMRP.

If some of the locations in UT become "unprotected" (not just Bears Ears, but all over), have any local climbing organizations looked into creative land purchasing options? 

Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 60
Ray Pinpillage wrote:

200 acres, not in Bears Ears, and they don't have permits. Yeah, that's quite a beginning.

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?

slc.underscore.dan · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 0
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?

There's a whole bunch of virgin Wingate in the southern Circle Cliffs near where that mine is going to be.

Would that get climbers more pumped on helping it? (Because that area could really use some development-climbing wise)

GSENM is my home away from home.  I've been bummed how little attention it's getting in all this.  It's been a monument for 22 years!
Frank Stein · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 205
  1. Paul Coakley wrote: Here's a great comparison for thought.
In Red River Gorge, KY the Red River Climbing Collation has pooled money from climbers to purchase a shared interest in property.  The interest is shared with oil companies who want access to drill in the area.  The climbers gain access to cliff line via oil company roads.  Both sides are "winning" in an area called PMRP.

If some of the locations in UT become "unprotected" (not just Bears Ears, but all over), have any local climbing organizations looked into creative land purchasing options? 

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

But, here is my take on all of this and everything else in general. Both on the state and federal level we voted the current lot in. We get the government and policies we deserve. 
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defe…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.