Mountain Project Logo

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


Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
Dave Kos wrote:

Ugh, that's cut and paste straight from conservative media.

Turn off the talk radio and turn on your brain.

Thank you Dave...

Hobo Greg · · My Van · Joined Mar 2016 · Points: 145
Brandon.Phillips wrote:

"Local Control" has always been rhetoric to push for deregulation.  In this case loss of federal protection means Utah opens up bears ears for resource extraction. Its a lot like when people say the civil war was about "states rights". 

If you are a climber protecting public lands will always be in your interest.  

EXACTLY. It's just like the civil war, when "states rights" meant "right to own people" that is the only fucking state right anyone cared to fight over.

Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
Demosthenes of Athens wrote:

To whom it may concern with regards to Bears Ears National Monument:

Long time lurker, I figured I'd get signed up to throw a few thoughts here:

Bears ears was created by fiat, and is being removed by fiat. I believe that the Antiquities act is going to be an expensive hill to fight on, and a poor one to die on.

It's my understanding that the Access Fund has always been for local organizations and local control. I would prefer that they continue to dedicate resources and energy toward cultivating relationships with local governments and climbing organizations in Utah, rather than spending on large federal lawsuits.  Other people are doing the suing. An Amicus Brief is much cheaper, if a public stance is required.

I also question the wisdom of taking a very public political stance, rather than trying to cultivate a positive relationship with both sides of the issue to ensure that the Access Fund finds itself in the good graces of whomever will come out on top in this one.  Should locals find that climbers came out as vehemently opposed to their perceived economic interests, I think we will find them unsympathetic to our cause when the dust settles. I would feel the same way if someone was suing to keep bread off of my family's table.

While staking a political stance may open the wallets of many people temporarily, I do not think it is wise in the long run. I am concerned that irreparable damage to the brand of this organization we all care about is going to occur over this.

If the primary concern is over Climbing as a designated activity, then let the focus be on that.

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.

grog m aka Greg McKee · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 70
Morgan Patterson 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...

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. 

Demosthenes of Athens · · Unknown Hometown · Joined 7 days ago · Points: 0

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.

Hobo Greg · · My Van · Joined Mar 2016 · Points: 145
grog m aka Greg McKee 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 hadn't replied to any of your posts till this one. Mostly because your other posts DO make it sound like you have a tinfoil hat signed by Rush Limbaugh. Government is certainly not perfect, but other than perhaps the Adirondack park, I can't think of one single time in American history that private or state entities did a better job at protecting their resources than does the federal government. So yes, I trust federal government more than I do any state or private holders. Show me where in conservation history that the opposite is true. Because just like "states rights" was just code for "right to own people", so is "local control" code for "sell to highest bidder"

Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
Demosthenes of Athens wrote:

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.

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.

Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
grog m aka Greg McKee 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. 

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. 

Tim Lutz · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2012 · Points: 5
grog m aka Greg McKee wrote:

 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. 

Kevin Kent · · Flagstaff, AZ · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 988

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

Worth noting Friends of Cedar Mesa said they are being represented pro bono (for free) by Hogan Lovells, the attorneys in the case. Not clear if others are paying and how much. 

Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
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...

Nate Jensen · · Unknown Hometown · Joined 6 days ago · Points: 0

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:

  • Camping
  • Climbing
  • Hiking
  • Mountain biking
  • Hunting
  • Fishing
  • Motorized recreation, (4x4s, dirtbikes, etc)
  • Forestry
  • Grazing
  • Mineral Extraction

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. 

jg fox · · Long Beach, CA · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 5
Hobo Greg wrote:

I hadn't replied to any of your posts till this one. Mostly because your other posts DO make it sound like you have a tinfoil hat signed by Rush Limbaugh. Government is certainly not perfect, but other than perhaps the Adirondack park, I can't think of one single time in American history that private or state entities did a better job at protecting their resources than does the federal government. So yes, I trust federal government more than I do any state or private holders. Show me where in conservation history that the opposite is true. Because just like "states rights" was just code for "right to own people", so is "local control" code for "sell to highest bidder"

I'll bite at this one. Mt Vernon is a non-public historical park that is maintained very well.  While not a natural site, it is still an example of a non-government run site of cultural significance to the American people.

Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
akafaultline wrote:

climbing is not the most important thing in life and shouldn’t be pursued as such. 

No but conservation of the natural world and of wild spaces is one of the most important things in life FOR life. 

And that's something AF is fighting for in supporting these protections...

FrankPS · · Atascadero, CA · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 275
Nate Jensen wrote:

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:

  • Camping
  • Climbing
  • Hiking
  • Mountain biking
  • Hunting
  • Fishing
  • Motorized recreation, (4x4s, dirtbikes, etc)
  • Forestry
  • Grazing
  • Mineral Extraction

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 the 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. 

Intelligent discourse has no place on this forum, Nate!  (nice post)

Tylerpratt · · Litchfield, Connecticut · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 35
bus driver wrote:

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. 

The problem is that if this goes unchecked then any president in the future can wipe out any national park. This has to be stopped so national parks cannot just be wiped off the face of the map by ONE MAN.

 "I had a really shitty night last night, maybe I'll wipe out Yosemite today and open it to mining because my cousin lives in the area and said he wants to start a mining company. No one can tell me no anyway because of when Trump knocked out Bears Ears in '17"

cragmantoo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 175

Steve Skarvinko · · SLC, UT · Joined Nov 2011 · Points: 5

The fact that Zinke and the current administration clearly did not listen to the +2.8 million public comments in support of keeping the national monuments speaks to the absurdity of the current state of partisan bullshit in this country. In my opinion, this issue was long decided prior to any public comments, they just had to wait a little bit to make it look like they actually listen to the public. When you look at how Trump is supporting a candidate like Roy Moore, its just another example of how divided we have become as a nation...

"That a monument perpetuates traditional uses is a point worth stressing, because it’s not well understood by those who would call monuments “land grabs” by a distant and out-of-touch federal government. These are already federal, public lands. Monument status doesn’t add acreage to the public estate, and private land inside monument boundaries is not subject to restrictions that govern management of public land. But monument status ensures that these landscapes are protected for future generations. So a new coal mine, for instance, can’t be developed..." Andrew McKean

https://www.outdoorlife.com/an-open-letter-to-secretary-zinke#page-4

AF et al. are simply taking the next steps to protect these areas as our elected officials and the federal bureaucracy are woefully ineffective. The easy alternatives have failed. Just look at the hundreds of cabinet positions still without a nominee, and a president who says he has no intention of filling many of these jobs! After ~ year of protesting and/or writing concerned letters, its pretty clear that these initial actions are not going to cut it. Short of changing the elected officials, legal actions are the only thing that may be effective during the next 3 years. Just my $0.02

 

Hobo Greg · · My Van · Joined Mar 2016 · Points: 145
Demosthenes of Athens wrote:

.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.

I'm sure glad they don't think like you do. Without the antiquities act, we'd had no devils tower, no Joshua tree, no death valley, no grand canyon, among others. There is more to life than just climbing, and no reason not to stand up and protect the wild places that make climbing so much more than just cranking hard moves.

Morgan Patterson · · CT · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 8,767
Demosthenes of Athens wrote:

We should not care who owns the land, we should only care about whether or not we get to climb on it. 

For someone who has had been very thoughtful in previous posts... this seems an utterly ignorant and shortsighted statement.

Also ownership didnt changing with the designation of a NM, just more extensive rules protecting it from destruction of private interests.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply