Consider calling your representative in Washington?

“There are people who graze livestock, people that like to hunt, people that like to hike, people that like to trail run,” said Barber, who has worked at the monument since it was created. “We’re trying to be fair.”
Click to expand...

All of this was already allowed under the original monument rules. This is about being pro-industry. When I spoke to multiple BLM employees about the plan options at the GSENM open house, they were all pushing for the no change to status quo option. After the initial monument public comment period and overwhelming pro-monument comments, I highly doubt that public sentiment leaned toward making the rules more lax.

My US Senate and House reps (Lee, Romney, Stewart) could care less about this. I've resorted to donating to and calling Ben McAdams.
 
fossana said:
Looks like the GSENM management plan and EIS is open for comment through 9/23. I refuse to acknowledge the illegal downsizing, so still calling it the monument.
Click to expand...
I'm considering commenting but want to be better informed before doing so. My preference is to restrict mining and other industrial development. In this information (https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...Proposed_RMPs-Final_EIS_Executive_Summary.pdf) I think I'm understanding correctly that Alternative B is the choice that's most environmentally-friendly and therefore the best fit with my preference. Correct? Thanks for any help you can provide.
 
I have called and emailed stating my disagreement with any downsizing. It’s hard to express my current opinion of this administration and opposition to it’s actions. It’s all bad from my point of view.
 
Janice said:
I'm considering commenting but want to be better informed before doing so. My preference is to restrict mining and other industrial development. In this information (https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...Proposed_RMPs-Final_EIS_Executive_Summary.pdf) I think I'm understanding correctly that Alternative B is the choice that's most environmentally-friendly and therefore the best fit with my preference. Correct? Thanks for any help you can provide.
Click to expand...

That's how I also interpreted the alternatives with the exception of mineral leasing/disposal. The status quo (plan A) actually maintains more closed areas; no new leases are allowed. The mineral leasing and disposal maps in Appendix A lay it out visually (attached screenshots). There isn't a plan A disposal map since it's not allowed anywhere.

Pianomover said:
I have called and emailed stating my disagreement with any downsizing. It’s hard to express my current opinion of this administration and opposition to it’s actions. It’s all bad from my point of view.
Click to expand...
The frustrating part is that this is all of this is going forward without Congressional approval or public support. Everything is for sale with this admin.
 

Attachments

  • planA_leasing.png
    planA_leasing.png
    527.6 KB · Views: 17
  • planB_leasing.png
    planB_leasing.png
    540.4 KB · Views: 18
  • planC_leasing.png
    planC_leasing.png
    577.8 KB · Views: 16
  • planD_leasing.png
    planD_leasing.png
    572.6 KB · Views: 15
  • planE_leasing.png
    planE_leasing.png
    580.4 KB · Views: 15
  • planB_disposal.png
    planB_disposal.png
    522.5 KB · Views: 15
  • planC_disposal.png
    planC_disposal.png
    530.8 KB · Views: 13
  • planD_disposal.png
    planD_disposal.png
    523.7 KB · Views: 15
  • planE_disposal.png
    planE_disposal.png
    529.9 KB · Views: 13
fossana said:
That's how I also interpreted the alternatives with the exception of mineral leasing/disposal. The status quo (plan A) actually maintains more closed areas; no new leases are allowed. The mineral leasing and disposal maps in Appendix A lay it out visually (attached screenshots). There isn't a plan A disposal map since it's not allowed anywhere.


The frustrating part is that this is all of this is going forward without Congressional approval or public support. Everything is for sale with this admin.
Click to expand...
It’s a disaster.
 
My take on following what's going on in Bears Ears National Monument is that the public comments aren't taken into consideration. The administration is going to do what it's going to do and the only potential fight is legally, in the courts.

Is that correct?
 
@ImNotDedYet That's what seems to be happening. As with other things (e.g. the concentration camps for asylum seekers), they push past norms into and beyond the gray area of what's legal and wait for the courts to stop them.
 
ImNotDedYet said:
My take on following what's going on in Bears Ears National Monument is that the public comments aren't taken into consideration. The administration is going to do what it's going to do and the only potential fight is legally, in the courts.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
By the time the courts make a decision the area will very likely be encircled by access roads heavy with truck traffic
 
Pianomover said:
By the time the courts make a decision the area will very likely be encircled by access roads heavy with truck traffic
Click to expand...
There's always a shot at obtaining preliminary injunction if there's an imminent threat of irreparable harm. I work at a law firm, and we've obtained one before when environmental aspects of our clients' land (primarily wildlife and watershed) were at risk of being damaged by off-road vehicles on a contested road.
 
I don't know why the courts haven't prevented further destruction until a final decision is made. It seems like there's potential for significant damage that will require tax payer money to undo (if that's even possible) should the downsizing be declared illegal. Although I fear that if it ultimately gets kicked up to SCOTUS and they agree to hear the case it's lost.

There was a recent episode of Dirtbag Diaries on the GSENM, which reported on how mining companies may buy leases without intent (or the financial resources) to develop the site, but rather demand/sue the government if the original monument boundaries are restored to make a profit on their investment. Although existing mining leases were grandfathered in, some companies found it more profitable to take a gov't buyout when GSENM was created. The podcast also covers some of the local politics in Boulder/Escalante from both sides of the spectrum.
 
Pianomover said:
By the time the courts make a decision the area will very likely be encircled by access roads heavy with truck traffic
Click to expand...

Indeed. Last month the administration made public their plans for the newly minimal Bears Ears, including chaining, building of access roads and power lines - most of which is in preparation for the uranium mining claims to kick in. (from a Canadian company nonetheless)
 
Lol ....... Hcn ......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top