Obama declares Bears Ears National Monument in southern Utah

CLandis wrote: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.

It would help, in response to statements like this, to look at how Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has done over the past 20 years since its creation in similar circumstances. There's been a rise in visitation there (though not much more than comparable rises in other nearby NP, BLM and NFS areas. But it was not developed in the model of what Ed Abbey called "Industrial Tourism," with increased paved roads, visitor centers, etc.

And yeah, the local and state folk don't want it, just as they did/do not want Grand Staircase-Escalante. This is a really old debate going back to the 1930s, with ties to Western Libertarianism, notions of independence, suspicion of outsiders, etc. To respond to Brad Pazian's question, most locals see this as a threat to their ways of life in logging, ranching, and mining, even though there's not been a huge amount of economic activity in these realms in SE Utah in the past several decades. It's similar to where I'm now living in West Virginia, the culture of extractive industries is so engrained that a lot of longtime locals have a visceral revulsion to tourism.

I'm personally pretty psyched about this move, especially since the GOP has been moving to privatize a lot of federal lands under the incoming Trump admin. It's telling about today's political climate that so many republicans are talking about simply nullifying Obama's decision; it's much more brazen than when GSE was created in 1996 by Clinton. I'm hoping that this doesn't happen. To my knowledge, an Antiquities Act action has never been nullified.

Oh, and just to piss off the MP crowd, I've got to say, a chalk ban at Indian Creek, along with Hueco-style regulations would be SWEET, and much needed there. Ha!

^ I live right in the middle of the GSENM. Most of the locals are coming around to the idea. Fewer signs being blown away, etc. But, the compromises that were made and are being made to "make all happy" may not be the "best" answer. Take the example of trapping. The iconic western Coyote songs stops this time of year due to the "Monument" letting locals trap and shoot them, along with the Bobcats, Badgers, Lions, and the list goes on. The locals do it for two reasons, 1) They are poor and need more $, 2) They and their kind have been hunting and trapping for generations. When the Gov. tries to change #2, folks will get cranky. There is no easy fix here. Hard to tell if B.E,s will be a "better" place now. This is up for debate. Most likely it will at least slow down the gradual degradation brought on by the ever increasing human population.

Before you all get too carried sucking each other off....
www.nhonews.com/news/2016/oct/14/utah-navajos-join-lawmakers-oppose-bears-ears/
The actual Navajo locals did not want this.
Had this been in place during the budget standoff, the Feds would have kept all you snowflakes out of Indian Creek.
The Park Service is broke and has a $25B maintenance backlog.
Now they can simply close the area due to budgetary constraints.
We have a $20T debt, so don't think the budget will get fixed.
A potential revenue source for Utah, via excise taxes has been removed. If you live in Utah prepare for higher taxes and reduced services in the near future.
There are plenty of people about who see humans as a cancer and many know that the best way to constrain humans from nature is via regulatory agencies. This area is now one zealot beaureaucrat away from being declared off limits due to environmental sensitivity.
This is another block in the tower of centralized power, which is adversarial to liberty.
Be prepared to pay much higher user fees, have many more restrictions placed upon you, no longer have the option of motorized travel to the more remote crags, and always have the threat of simply being locked out hanging over your heads.

Pnelson wrote: Oh, and just to piss off the MP crowd, I've got to say, a chalk ban at Indian Creek, along with Hueco-style regulations would be SWEET, and much needed there. Ha!

You joke, but this could very well be a reality, along with total closure of buttresses with petroglyphs. We could also see a ban of driving off of paved areas. How's that approach now?

People on MP have already acted as if the world was ending when the new Indian Creek camping regulations went into effect. Just wait.

I'm all for protecting the place. I love it and it has been, and continues to be a very important place in my life. However, blindly applauding a move from afar when those most closely affected by it are against it is naive at best.

Why have the Redds, yes those Redds, fought hard against this monument? The same Redds that have allowed us all to climb all over land that they posses the grazing rights to. Have any of you had a conversation with them? Yes the same Redds that have worked tirelessly with the NC, BLM, and other agencies to ensure Indian Creek would remain as is, but still fought against the monument designation.

For those who trumpet the economic boom that will follow, please explain. Why does Canyonland NP not bring in those same dollars? Why not Indian Creek? Naming an area a National Monument won't bring in more dollars, except to the BLM, if they begin to charge visitation fees.

I've watched for years as Indian Creek and NP visitors turn North on 191 to go to Moab (more than twice as far away as Monticello to the South) to go spend these dollars that some claim the Monument will bring. I assume they do this because Moab has gear shops, touristy shops, and breweries. I see no reason a monument designation will change this. Monticello doesn't want breweries, jeep rallies, and the like. Rather, it has always shunned these establishments to maintain a small community based serene atmosphere. Whether that desire is fear based or simply preferred doesn't really matter.

Ultimately, the designation of the area as a Monument is probably best. But don't try to sell it as an economic opportunity. Don't claim making a quaint sleepy little town a bustling tourist destination is always preferable, especially if you don't live in or have a stake in that town.

Txclimber, while I did kind of intend that comment about Indian Creek to be trollish, I was most definitely not joking. Indian Creek right now has a lot in common with how Hueco was in the late 90s, has equal quality of archaeological resources, and something has to be changed in its climber plan. Folks still treat it like a laissez faire Wild West, and it's harming the area.

And yeah, I talked to Heidi Redd about this years ago, as well as to quite a few other ranchers across the Canyon Country for dissertation research. It's nowhere near as simple as someone either being for a full-on national park, or opening the area up to unmitigated extractive industry.

I agree with you on the "trojan horse" of supposed economic benefits of protected wild lands. Sometimes they benefit, other times they don't. But the danger is, once you make the philosophical case that protecting land for recreation (hiking, sightseeing, rafting, mtn biking, and yes, climbing) has economic benefits, you open the door to trying to MAXIMIZE economic gain, which sets you on the road toward shitshows like Old Faithful and Yosemite Valley.

^ Agreed

Acadia National Park began as National Monument designated by Woodrow Wilson... it is now one of the most cherished public places in New England, with a thriving economy supporting countless towns. I'm sure there were locals who fought it till their dying end. Luckily, they are only around for a generation or so and there are others who step in to protect our heritage where they lack the constitution or foresight.

Another concern that is not being stated is the impact on the resources of the are IF the monument does create all of the much touted increase in tourism.

For example: Monticello and Blanding depend on snow melt from the Abajos for 100% of their water needs (it is a desert after all) . This limited resource is already stretched thin enough with the existing size of these cities. So much so that Monticello had to create separate metered water connections for outdoor usage (hose bibs, sprinklers, etc.) creating a sizable increase in utility bills for residents.

If either of these towns grow to even half the size of Moab, they will no longer have enough water for their citizens. What then? Trucks? Pipeline?

To paraphrase Abbey: There is no shortage of water in the desert. There is just the right amount. Enough so the plants don't become too crowded. Enough so the cities don't become too crowded.

txclimber wrote:What then? Trucks? Pipeline?

How about more efficient collection methods and more resourceful usage habits? Cisterns, etc. but obviously there is an upper threshold.

Morgan Patterson wrote: How about more efficient collection methods and more resourceful usage habits? Cisterns, etc. but obviously there is an upper threshold.

Any water "collected" is taking it from somewhere else.

Hopefully they include more RV hookups and paved trails. I still can't believe parts of Utah are still wild. We need progress. Develop it so we can ruin it, in the name of protecting it.

Eric Carlos wrote: Any water "collected" is taking it from somewhere else.

That much is obvious, right, no matter where you are in the world... desalination takes sea water, wells take it from the ground, cisterns take it from the sky ;-)

That's also currently the status quo... So changing usage habits and better collection techniques are part of the game.

I broadly support these designations for the most part, so long as they are not creating the RV hookups and industrial tourism cited above. Banning climbers... can be a good thing IMO, however the language notes that climbing was one aspect FOR the designation so those fears I think are blown out of proportion. I think its a very important first step for the Feds to create a protected place partly because of climbers.

Woodson wrote: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

Yeah, you know, Utah's neighbor? A guy who spends a LOT of time and money in UT, and has for over 20 years.

Sure, the "predominant political party from Utah" doesn't "give a shit about their own land". What a ridiculous statement. . . .

As far as your PLI comment:
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Obama had ruined a bipartisan compromise in the works.
"After years of painstaking negotiations with a diverse coalition, Utah had a comprehensive bipartisan solution on the table that would have protected the Bears Ears and provided a balanced solution. Instead, the president's midnight proclamation cherry picked provisions of the Public Lands Initiative and disregarded the economic development and multi-use provisions necessary for a balanced compromise,” he said.
. . .and. . .
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said his office is planning a lawsuit over the issue.

The only reason BO did this, during the last few days in office, was for the sake of his legacy. If this was a matter of concern and great benefit to UT and her people, it wouldn't be an executive order as he's walking out.

trailridge wrote:Hopefully they include more RV hookups and paved trails. I still can't believe parts of Utah are still wild. We need progress. Develop it so we can ruin it, in the name of protecting it.

Well said.

Pnelson wrote: It would help, in response to statements like this, to look at how Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has done over the past 20 years since its creation in similar circumstances. There's been a rise in visitation there (though not much more than comparable rises in other nearby NP, BLM and NFS areas. But it was not developed in the model of what Ed Abbey called "Industrial Tourism," with increased paved roads, visitor centers, etc.

Okay. Maybe you missed the Visitor Centers and paved roads and structural additions. . . and didn't see the major increase in traffic over the last 20 years?
Do you remember Calf Creek before the infrastructure and RV's poured in? Just one small example of "Industrial Tourism" in the GSENM.

If you improve it (pave it, et al), they'll come.

In my experience I find that the Federal Government taking over is never a good thing for climbers.

Never ever never.

By by Obama... can't wait to see the door hit your ass on the way out.

(edited so as not to violate Rule #1)

Uh, putting "Chaffetz' and 'compromise' in the same sentence constitutes an abuse of our language. The PLI 'compromised' only to the extent that it made feinting concessions towards political plausibility, not out of any sense of respect for land, water, or shared heritage. Their maps are riddled with enormous 'energy zones' covering fragile ecologies, archaeologic sites etc. that would have been destroyed under that plan. So don't tell me about their compromises...they had their chance, got greedy, and got trumped by the Prez.

"Blow me Obama... can't wait to see the door hit your ass on the way out. "

What is his deal? He must be nervous that his legacy will quickly evaporate. I am very nervous...he is fanning the flames for world war 3 with Russia right now. Stop the damage and just walk away.

This was a last-ditch effort to save the area from oil and gas, permanently. All other issues seem secondary to me -- not unimportant, just less so. As such, I'd say it's good for climbing and good for the world generally.

As for federal management of long-existing climbing areas, I think that's gone generally well. Eg, Yos, Red Rocks, JTree, Zion, and hundreds of crags on NFS and BLM land. Not perfect, but generally well.

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.

Simply put, additional restrictions. Do know a single person in your life that doesn't use natural gas, oil or minerals from out of the ground? If the answer is no then people benefit from the "greedy few" providing said products. Personally I find it hypocritical to continually shut off huge swathes of land while consuming resources found on said land. It smacks of, not in my back yard mentality. It's OK to drill for oil in Saudi Arabia because it doesn't affect me, right? In the end its about trying to strike a balance which some people cannot fathom.