Continue with onX Maps
Continue with Facebook
Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defend Bears Ears National Monument
|
So they are suing because rock climbing is no longer acknowledged status but isn't as of now taking away access? Seems like it is a huge chuck of money that could be used to buy / open up access to new climbing. |
|
VisperScale, this does regard climbing access as I understand it. You should come visit Indian Creek and check out the climbing there! It's the BEST crack climbing in the world! Not all of it is removed from protection under this order, but some of it is and as far as I'm concerned it should all be protected for reasons beyond climbing. This is about more than climbing access!!! |
Robert Michael wrote: You mean, like compared to the Nature Conservancy? World Wildlife Fund? Utah Open Lands Trust? Access Fund?  |
telepaulk wrote: So they are officially saying you can't climb there anymore? Or is that just assumptions that are being made about it? Would it not be better to try to put the money towards expanding the area that is protected to included climbing sections that are being left out than trying to reject the entire thing they are doing for areas that don't have climbing? |
Tony B wrote: Sooo, you're saying that you think the land management for climbing at a place like the RRG is more ideal than that of Indian Creek? |
|
I asked this on their FB page, but never got a reply. What is the purpose of the Access Fund suing in addition to Patagonia? It seems they have already announced their intent to file suit and have billions of dollars to pay for any sort of associated legal fees. Is this a joint effort under the same lawsuit? |
|
Just to be clear. You can still climb in the "unprotected" areas. They will be just the same status as all of Indian Creek before the Bears Ears designation one year ago. I'd rather see the Access Fund not get on Trump and team consevative's shit list by suing now. |
ViperScale wrote: It threatens climbing access, sets a hugely negative precedent for threatening climbing access on other federal lands, and opens up substantial opportunity for the climbing landscape to be significantly degraded even if climbing access remains (for example by allowing extractive industries to operate in the same area). This is exactly what the Access Fund should be focusing on. |
Dan Evans wrote: My understanding is yes -- they are joint plaintiffs: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/06/boulder-access-fund-patagonia-sue-donald-trump/ I think it makes a lot of sense to have several different 'interests' represented in the lawsuit. |
|
It's not obvious to me which side of this argument is stronger. Obviously, I like the idea of protecting the lands while maintaining access for climbing and other outdoor adventures, I am on this forum after all. I'm not convinced a National Park or Monument designation is the best way to do that. It seems that areas with such designations are overcrowded and over regulated making it difficult to camp, climb or explore without reservations/permits months in advance. Does the designation eventually create this problem by driving people to it who otherwise wouldn't have been interested or is the designation required because the areas are already overcrowded and in need of further regulation? |
grog m aka Greg McKee wrote: The reason you and others dont TRUST the government is something of a cultural phenomenon not rooted in fact/reality. The issue becomes one of lack of accountability/transparency and a misalignment of interest between those elected to gov and those they represent. Politicians are corruptable given our system and therefore you dont trust them... fix the government re align the interests and you should restore trust in the government. The solution is not removing, destroying or gutting the fed government and its important protections and necessary functions because the population doesnt trust it, its make it a system you can trust. There are fundamental and philosophically important reasons for the feds to control/protect these areas over state and local control. Fix the issues dont buy into the broken fed/govt cant do anything argument. That concept is merely a political tool... |
Dave Kos wrote: Thank you Dave... |
Demosthenes of Athens wrote: I think you bring up some interesting points but I think most of them seem out of context from the reality on the ground with regards to AF. I'm no expert, and I volunteer with them, but they were very much involved in the creation of these protections and had spent significant resources to become a recognized and important user group for the areas being designated. Because of their work on the federal level climbing was specifically acknowledged as a valued activity. It was a milestone accomplishment. So for them to not be involved, would be to neglect the effort, work, and funds they spent in the formation of these protections for you know... climbing. When did protecting land for public use (spiritual, recreational, educational, etc) and to prevent destruction of natural land become a political issue? When industry started paying politicians. The fight was made politcal by industry not by the Access Fund trying to stand up for public protections. To categorize AF's intent to protect their work and our land as a political move seems either disingenuous or lacking a basic understanding of the issue. When one political party is intent on developing and extracting resources from public land for private benefit (of those paying for their campaigns) and the other is intent on protecting land for public use and climbing I'm not sure how they are damaging their brand to stand up for exactly what their intented purpose is... to protect land for public use. If one's ecnomic interest is to destroy cultural and valuable public space for private profit/'bread on the table' then they need to realign their economic interests, they are the problem. Times change... those that can't adapt DIE. But the person who thinks Coal is the best thing since sliced bread and that the industry is the wave of the future and the only problem is those coal hating liberals, will NEVER respond well to climbers trying to limit the amount of land his company can destroy for money. But in the end will ANYTHING other then the utter destruction of the resource for his 'bread' be acceptable to this person? Likely not.. point being trying to appease these folks who are spoon fed from the corp information spout isnt going to get you anywhere but a destruction of the resource. They are hopelessly aligned with the executive corp interest not their own. |
Morgan Patterson wrote: Its not like I wear some tinfoil hat and listen to rush limbaugh everyday.I was just trying to bring up some things that made me think before I chose one way or the other. I regret posting in this thread because its just an echo chamber for you guys to agree with each other and bash on people like me. For what its worth I donated to the access fund for this. Peace out. Enjoy your circlejerk. |
|
I recently received the Vertical Times publication from the Access Fund in which they touted that the only way to truly guarantee climbing access was climber owned land. For the $150,000 retainer on a federal lawsuit (the exact number is irrelevant, it's expensive...) we could make quite the land purchase. If, by some bizarre turn of events, climbing land on Bears Ears goes up for sale, I would prefer to be the first buyer in line with cash in hand, rather than having spent it on attorneys for a lawsuit in which we have questionable standing defending a law from 1906. Furthermore, congress appears to have the authority to do this anyway, even if the President's authority is dubious. No lawsuit is going to stop them from making the same changes. This move is popular among conservative and libertarian circles. I do not see this as a politically toxic issue for Republicans among their base, meaning there would be nothing stopping Congress from doing the same thing even if the lawsuit is successful. I hear that climbing access is threatened, but no indication that anything is going to change from before the monument existed. If the BLM was friendly to climbing before, why would the BLM suddenly change their mind because the designation has changed? Because of this, I question the ability of the Access Fund to even have standing in this lawsuit. Their position is much better suited to an amicus brief, which will be much cheaper. This issue is polarizing, and that is why I think it is a risk to the brand of the Access Fund and climbers to take a firm stance one way or the other. What bothers me is that I fear that the Access fund will realize how quickly people will open their wallets when you say "Help Stop Trump" in an email. This will reap short term benefits financially, but does damage to the image of the organization. Those who happen to like Trump more than the Access Fund will find themselves opposed to an organization to which they were formerly indifferent. Lawsuits are messy and they seldom make anyone look good. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on a Summons and Complaint knows that all kinds of ridiculous things get written on them by the plaintiffs, because that is just what you do. But someone who doesn't know this about complaints, sees Access Fund on top of that paper and underneath it are the standard claims that come with any complaint, it will not look good. "Lyman's Family Farm" may be a large corporation with 600 employees, but if those 600 employees know that climbers were the ones who sued and tried to ensure that they couldn't keep their jobs, they're not going to be friendly about letting climbers climb on their land after they win. This action is a trade on the part of the Access Fund: Goodwill for dollars. Dollars can be raised in other ways, but goodwill is incredibly hard to build and maintain. I believe the Access Fund should have absolutely no position on the Antiquities Act. We should not care who owns the land, we should only care about whether or not we get to climb on it. Someone is going to win this, and I want to be sure that regardless of who does, we're able to say to that particular side, "We're ready and excited to work with you about the future of climbing here." It's really hard to do that if you spent the past 3 or 4 years maligning them in a lawsuit. |
Demosthenes of Athens wrote: You're clearly a lawyer and I appreciate the practicality of your point on cost effectiveness and where to fight. It seems an important one for sure... wouldnt their standing in the case however be that they worked with the feds to create the monument and that because of their efforts climbing was specifically protected and recognized in the the law? Wouldn't the harm to them be the undoing of those protection they sought with the law? There's one major flaw with your point though... they guy or group (Trump/ers) you're trying to stay in good standing with are the ones advocating for destruction of the climbing resource. Its a great point you make and an important one, but it seems like a bit of a fairytale. How do you respond with "We're ready and excited to work with you about the future of climbing at X." When X is very resource they want to level to say build a copper mine (sound familiar)? The only thing that HELP in that fight is the legal protections fought for previously. . . not some good will with a politican who's being paid handsomely by the mining industry. |
grog m aka Greg McKee wrote: Dude... I'm not sure why you think my comment was bashing on you... it wasnt intended that way in the least bit. I was trying to make a point about the 'fear the government, it never works' cultural phenom in this country which you clearly exhibited in your post. We as educated rational thoughtful people ought to be able to have discussions of behaviors or concepts others present without the assumption we're attacking the person. If you feel like a lot of people disagree with your thoughts/position, maybe its worth really trying to understand why there are so many who disagree. |
|
Access Fund is joining the lawsuit being brought by 7 other plaintiffs: Patagonia Works, Utah Diné Bikéyah, Friends of Cedar Mesa, Archaeology Southwest, Conservation Lands Foundation, the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. You can read the press release here https://www.friendsofcedarmesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/BENM-Press-Release-Complaint-12.6.2017-updated.pdf You can read the complaint here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11GVi8E_3pHm09BtPYrRVPPJdUwnlNPQq/view?usp=sharing |
Tony B wrote:If The Nature Conservancy had control of Yosemite, do you think we'd have had this right here? No absolutely not... You know what else you wouldnt have??? DING DING DING..... CLIMBING!!!!!!! Because the Nature Conservancy does not allow climbing on their properties... |
|
All, This is my first post on MP as a new climber (about 1y experience) so be gentle. I’m both largely clueless about climbing and yet hopelessly addicted. I’d like to share my perspective and opinion. It may be different than most here, but I think it is measured and reasonable. Perhaps I can learn from posts here and others can learn from mine. While I am a climbing noob, I’ve spent my entire life in the rural west and I’m pretty familiar with land management rules and practices. To be clear, I have no use for the Trump administration. Similarly, I couldn’t have pulled the lever for Clinton either. I stayed home. My hope is not to talk about politics but rather about appropriate land use policies. These new national monuments were formed on BLM land. As a monument, it continues to be managed by the BLM, but it changes/adds restrictions upon use. If the shrinking of the monuments holds, it will remain BLM land but monument restrictions would no longer be in place. There has been no attempt to move this land from federal control. We can discuss what Trump’s motives are, (clearly, they are not pure). Likewise, the way Obama declared the monument was an act of divisive political rhetoric. Even if Trump wants to move these lands away from federal management, he does not have that authority. The crux of this issue is this: Under what priorities/restrictions and for what uses should this federal land be managed? Here is a quick list of activities that typically take place on BLM land. I would suggest that when properly managed, all of these uses are legitimate, responsible, and appropriate:
When federal land, (BLM for FS), is placed in a monument, wilderness, wilderness study, or a roadless area, additional restrictions in addition to standard BLM and FS practices can and are applied to the above activities. Folks on this forum, (myself included), probably tend to think that the first four on this list are “more valuable/appropriate” than the other uses on this list. However, I think that is a mistake. I have many friends who lack that physical ability to climb who enjoy riding an ATV. They spend hours fixing trails and caring for the land. This is no less real than our love for the crag. Are there shitheads in the ATV community who can’t stay on the trail and tear up the land? Absolutely… far too many of them. However, I don’t believe that closing off motorized access is the answer. Much like the climbing community they need to self-regulate and educate their own. A well placed motorized trail can be part of the land use plan. There is a danger in shutting these guys out; we want them as our allies rather than adversaries. If they no longer have access to an area, they care less about its fate. The climbing community is miniscule compared to many of these other activities. Without the support of other conservationists, there will be no one to stand in the way of land administrators with ill intent. The hunters are another ally we cannot do without. To be clear, nothing pisses me off more than some jackass who dumps their TV on public land, shoots holes in it, and then leaves it there for time and eternity. I’ve even seen a target shooter try to hit that bolt up on the wall they can see glinting in the sun. Some of these people we just can’t fix… just like some in the climbing community. However, this isn’t the majority in the community. There is no doubt in my mind that most of my hunting buddies both understand and care more about conservation and wildlife than any other group out there. We need these strong convictions on our side to come up with the correct land use policies. I think that well managed forestry and mineral extraction has a role to play on public lands. My favorite bow hunting area in south east Idaho is now a phosphorous strip mine. It breaks my heart to see this. However, every person on this forum either directly or indirectly uses the products made from this mine. I think it would be healthy for more folks to see this and understand there is a cost for this extraction. Too many of us want the product then say “not in my back yard.” Is it better if we export all of our extraction to China and then import their products? Forests are a renewable resource and should be wisely used. I didn’t say abused, (which can and does happen). When wisely used, the revenue created can be leveraged to sustain our resource. How do you think the FS road you used to get to the crag last weekend was funded? The gravel, roadbase, and grading which you took for granted was most likely funded by forestry, grazing or mineral extraction. So let’s bring this full circle: The designation of this monument can only add restrictions to the activities taking place on the land. Perhaps this is good, perhaps bad, or both. The restrictions that are placed may very well be on the climbing access we are trying to protect rather than the ATVs we are trying to ban. The notion that this land reverting to standard BLM management would remove some climbing access is suspect to me. Perhaps if one crag or another were sold as a mineral extraction site that is possible. Therefore, we should be cautious and involved with each and every decision that is made for each parcel of land. I am equally cautious about the AF moving beyond their charter in politically polarized and dysfunctional system. I would also argue that diminishing the number of stakeholders by making items 1-4 on the list the only remaining stakeholders can and will eventually backfire on us. I would also argue that like Trump’s shrinking of the monument, the original creation of the monument was a wedge politics issue. Stakeholders in areas 5-10 saw the Obama administration’s policies as hostile to their interests, and they were not wrong. In the end, we must protect areas of cultural significance, protect and conserve our resources, and bring as many stakeholders as possible into the land use policy debate. |
