Bears Ears National Monument

Gnwatts......

didn't seen to have a problem with Nick using the term "widespread". I was using the same terms....
 
I stand corrected, sort of.
Using your logic Bob (50/50 split polling), there is widespread support for Bears Ears.
 
The Olympia "precedent" seems pretty narrow given that the park was reduced in size due to national security concerns, namely the need for wood during wartime. After the war, the monument was expanded back to mostly its original size, minus some mistakes in the original designation that had taken land from private property holders.

This is different; there is no urgent need to reduce the size Bear's Ears. My hunch is that since the Antiquities Act does not explicitly state that the executive has the authority to reduce the size of a monument, the executive has to make a pretty compelling case for doing so. National security would certainly be one such argument, but lack of "widespread" support or the potential to create new jobs are not compelling. The purpose of the Antiquities Act is to preserve culturally significant land, something that at certain times could be very unpopular, and which may result in a loss of jobs.
 
Heads up.

There is a rally at the State Capital organized by many organizations Monday for you to give "public input" on this. See ya there?
https://www.facebook.com/events/162299857692025/

There will also be a gathering on Monday along the parade route or at the capital when Trump is here. Keep your eyes open and weigh in on how you feel about the proposed downsizing and splitting and mining.
 
Artemus said:
Heads up.

There is a rally at the State Capital organized by many organizations Monday for you to give "public input" on this. See ya there?
https://www.facebook.com/events/162299857692025/

There will also be a gathering on Monday along the parade route or at the capital when Trump is here. Keep your eyes open and weigh in on how you feel about the proposed downsizing and splitting and mining.
Click to expand...

The main protest will be Saturday at 1. I'll be up there with my daughter.
 
IMG_0299.JPG IMG_0300.JPG IMG_0301.JPG Just saw these, interesting to finally get an actual map an statement. Seems bizarre? Don't quite see there logic? Maybe would have to look at a map of where natural resources are.
 
Jmr said:
Just saw these, interesting to finally get an actual map an statement. Seems bizarre? Don't quite see there logic? Maybe would have to look at a map of where natural resources are.
Click to expand...
FEDSGVV6GNHHRFLDJUSZIUWUDQ.jpg
 
slc_dan said:
Notice how HITRR isn't in any of the monuments? I surely hope they don't try to pave that in these fighting years.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my thought. Utah wants to create a state park at the end of HitR so they can host Mormon youth group re-enactments. No way that happens without it being paved.
 
Dave said:
That was exactly my thought. Utah wants to create a state park at the end of HitR so they can host Mormon youth group re-enactments. No way that happens without it being paved.
Click to expand...

The logic in this still defies me. Paved roads is a step away from what pioneers had to experience. Keep the road rugged and dirt, and the youth get to see it in closer to form to how the pioneer settlers made it and get the see the landscape how those pioneers saw it. Paving it and adding a bunch of amenities down there detracts from that experience, IMO.

Also...kinda sad to see the location of DH ruin divulged so publicly now. That used to be a very difficult location to find with a google search and actually required a bit more detective work to put a few things together. One of those places that was probably best protected by keeping it off the public radar and leaving it to word of mouth among circles of trusted individuals. I had made an attempt to go up and make a visit to it myself once, but got turned back by a bunch of snow still sitting across the road just on the north side of Bear Ears and didn't have any chains or other traction devices with me to make it worth forging ahead.

Anyways...this all sucks....I would have been OK with a few select smaller chunks here and there on the fringes of the monuments for the sake of some compromise, but this goes way beyond what deserves to be protected. With such growth in outdoor recreation enthusiasts, the more land we have protected for wilderness recreation and exploration, among cultural and paleontological interests etc....the more there is for people to spread out and still enjoy a sense of solitude here and there and experience the thrill of being able to see vast landscapes largely in their serene natural state. Reducing such lands and opening the rest up to paved roads, structural development, and so also have the effect bringing more crowds and then condensing them into more confined wilderness areas resulting in greater impact on what's left of those natural landscapes...and so on....

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Wish I could have been at the rally this afternoon.
 
WasatchWill said:
the more land we have protected for wilderness recreation and exploration, among cultural and paleontological interests etc....the more there is for people to spread out and still enjoy a sense of solitude
Click to expand...
Or perhaps, instead of designating it a monument and drawing more people to it, you could just not mention it at all? You know, not draw a giant bullseye around it and give it a cute name? Too late now, I know. Cat's outta the bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top