Continue with onX Maps
Continue with Facebook
Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defend Bears Ears National Monument
Ray Pinpillage wrote: This is the silliest argument I've heard even from trumpkins on Obama... Do YOU really believe the NATIONAL Forest Service has some directive to try to make money as a whole by installing portos and tables at trail heads??? Did you even stop to consider that THAT sort of thing IS environmental protection? Ya know so people are shitting all around the trails and limiting impacts to particular places to preserve others? Are you sure you and other don't just have an implicit bias? |
Morgan Patterson wrote: The tables and toilettes attracted human traffic to areas it never was to begin with. The revenue from the program is used to increase enforcement. I can think of a few trailheads that got very little attention until bathrooms and parking lots were installed. Now those areas are environmentally impacted by human traffic. The revenue goes toward hiring more rangers and enforcing laws. The bureaucracy simply maintains and grows itself. Before the 9th Circuit ruled, the FS was handing out tickets at unimproved sites, why do you think that is? Yeah, revenue scheme. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: The map I recall seeing seemed to have a lot of climbing areas over natural resources that were of interest but not yet mined.
Restricting motorized access? You mean basic LAND CONSERVATION? Pretty sure that's in the AF charter. We do that back here on the East coast its a common thing we do to protect the environment and wild spaces. Next... Being angry that you can't rip whatever 4 wheeler you want up into whatever a wild area you want sure seems unreasonable to me. Okay so now it's "POTENTIALLY" restrict access. Glad we got that cleared up... so you're judging the AF now based upon what you think MIGHT be potential restrictions that MIGHT occur in compromising with the many other organizations seeking to protect the land. Don't see any issue there since there ISNT ONE YET. The notion of access for all not just some is a fallacy as well... of course access will be limited by impacts to the land and those high impacts in sensitive areas will be restricted. This is basic conservation which is the point of a NM. Again... I really dont see how any of this goes against the AF and their mission. The truth is that some areas with cliffs might not be suitable environmentally for the impacts of climbers and there may be more important things to preserve (indian sites etc) and to preserve them is the logical and moral thing to do even at the expense of YOURS and MINE individual pursuits. Do you really think the landscape and wildness of the area will be harmed with these protections? Do you think these properties will be better served being leased to industrial companies who are paying politicians to give them leases so they can grow their own bureaucracy? Because if you ask me its that cycle which is growing bureaucracy in this country... not the AF and others trying to protect land. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: It did not.
It did - from drilling and other extractive industries; from pillaging and defacement of native American artifacts; from further development
That's not the function of a national monument.
Again, NM designation did not alter climbing access one bit. In fact, quite the opposite. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: Because we are living in a country with a growing population and one that is more and more focused recently on getting outside. Just think of 10 years ago how many climbing commercials there were on TV. None. Nowadays they're common... outdoor adventures are becoming more mainstream. Of course from this there is more need for more areas and improvements need to be made to mitigate impacts and more enforcement to make sure people arent messing stuff up. I am unfamiliar with the case you cite but how do you think they should regulate people? I'm pretty sure the accepted method in our society and around the world is... fines. |
Marc801 C wrote: The antiquities act already prohibited that. There was no drilling or mining in BE to start with and it's already public land. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: Pretty sure the Antiquities Act is what Obama used to create the BE monument... It's my understanding that most the land was BLM land that could be leased in the future if an admin came along was willing to lease it. |
Morgan Patterson wrote: Spend some more time in the west and get back to me. You can reread my posts if you'd like, taking them out of context or misconstruing them doesn't validate your position. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: What are you talking about... you said part of your issue is that it removes motorized access to some areas. That's not removing access... that's just land conservation. 4x4 access back here in the East is extremely prohibitive, they are terrible for the environment. Good riddance. I'm not misconstruing anything... you're quoted and all. And I've spend a fair amount of time climbing, hiking and skiing out West. Listen if you and Other are so entrenched in this AF is bad and doesnt do anything and this is all political you're clearly ignorant of the fact or willfully blind. I'm not sure any amount of discussion or presentation of facts, maps, etc is going to do a thing to broaden your perspective. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: There is uranium in the Chinle and Moenkopi layers of sandstone. Do you know what layer is atop those? Yeah, all that beautiful Wingate that makes up the climbing in IC. While it would be unlikely for uranium exploration and mining in IC, we're talking about the entirety of Bears Ears. Interestingly there is a uranium lease just to the northwest of the Bridger Jack Mesa, in Lavender Canyon. Check out the interactive map in this article - and read the article, too. All the yellow dots/rectangles are uranium leases, the blue areas have strong uranium potential, and the green dots are locations of natural or cultural significance.
That's rather incorrect. See the article and map linked above.
...to existing roads. Hardly a "restriction", and I say that as an off-road traveling Jeep owner.
Joshua Tree, City of Rocks NP, New River Gorge, Colorado National Monument, Devil's Tower NM, Obed, Pinnacles, Red Rock Canyon NCA and a number of others were or are currently national monuments or preserves during the height of route development. |
|
Here's the map comparing NM before and after Trump reductions. 1. Clearly there are many climbing areas that will no longer be protected by the NM status. 2. There are AT LEAST 15 climbing areas that are in proposed areas to be leased for oil and mining extraction. You guys are both wrong... These reductions harm and threatening climbing access.  |
|
monument status increases likelihood of a fixed anchor ban. no protections for rock climbing are necessarily present in monument designation. we can bitch all we want about O&G development in our canyon lands but it seems a bit limp when we're all dumping carbon into the air on a significant scale just to travel to recreate in our fine and fragile UT deserts. |
Marc801 C wrote: I've got to hand it to the Trib, their articles sound compelling. When you go and start to look for those existing Uranium leases that would be inside the BENM you start to find out there's nothing actually there. Just unmolested, yet barron, earth. If you go by that map, you'd swear River House Ruin was within spitting distance of a Uranium mine...it's not though. I wonder why that is? No way the Trib is trying to influence readers with iffy content...right? Don't take my word for it, Brosefus, fire up the Googles and show me where's the beef! |
|
|
|
I don't remember if this was posted before but here it is, for increased uranium mining to be profitable in Utah, the price of uranium needs to double. It was in a Washington Post article concerning the lobbying that occurred. Most likely the uranium companies want the mill to stay open and the monument was perceived as a threat to it with increased scrutiny of surrounding land of a national monument. This wouldn't be the first time in America that the EPA shut down a mine or a mill. Drilling for oil is probably the biggest driving factor in monument reduction not uranium mining. That being said there is a vested national interest in keeping certain facilities open in the event of a national emergency, like war. Hard to get uranium from China if you are at war with China. Shutting down a facility where you can mill it isn't easy to get back. |
Morgan Patterson wrote: So you're saying those climbing areas are now in jeopardy because they are no longer in a NM? Were they in jeopardy a year ago? I don't recall this level ass puckering prior to Trump taking office. Google says the first discussion on this site took place in 2016 when BE became a NM. Why weren't you concerned two years ago? |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: Basically, it is within spitting distance of the existing lease - about 1.5 miles. The Trib map shows this quite clearly if you locate RHR on Google maps and then expand the Trib map to the same scaling so you can locate Comb Wash and the correct meanders of the San Juan River.  |
Marc801 C wrote: Which mines were decommissioned as a result of the NM status? I'll wait. |
Max Supertramp wrote: Sure which is why it's important that groups like the Access Fund are involved and well funded.
Carbon from climbers traveling to climb is not a significant source of carbon in the atmosphere so don't feel limp about it, that's not a good comparison for a variety of reason. |
Ray Pinpillage wrote: Yes potentially, they are in areas that are now proposed lease ares.
No they were designated as a NM.
Because we were actively adding protections to some areas, not taking them away and accelerating the pace of industrial extraction.
No those were discussions about it being protected... I thought that was great and there didnt seem to be some wild mis-perceptions. |
