Bears ear and Grand staircase are losing ground

[kerrlakeRoo]

Just saw on Fox News site that Trump has rolled back some of the lands that were converted in past years to National Park lands.
Supposedly Utah folks were asking for these lands to be reopened, and there were comments about increasing access.
From you folks out there that have been using these areas, and seen the effects of new designations, is there a benefit to this change?
Will new opportunities present themselves?

[profdant139]

Yes, I have read a lot of his stuff. I don't always (or even often) agree with his politics, but it is well written. His work is more than just ranting -- he can really capture the Four Corners area.

[fanrgs]

Just curious--has anyone on this thread read Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang"? It is now over 40 years old, but it takes place in exactly the area of the two downsized monuments.

[LenSatic]

PawPaw_n_Gram wrote:

Talked to a lot of people in Utah, Arizona and Nevada about government lands. I found no one proposing moving actual ownership of the public lands to the states who did not have business interests in mind

We in AZ would like the Grand Canyon back (we are the Grand Canyon State). There are businesses there already, we just want the money to stay here rather than go back to Washington. It, in and of itself, IS a big business.

[PawPaw_n_Gram]

Thanks for a wonderful balanced post.

We traveled across much of the area about a year ago.

I found BLM employees to be wonderfully helpful and most are not ‘anonymous Washington bureaucrats’ but local people proud of their state, heritage and natural features.

I might be wrong, but while the areas were National Monuments under the National Park Service, the actual people handling the majority of the area were BLM.

Talked to a lot of people in Utah, Arizona and Nevada about government lands. I found no one proposing moving actual ownership of the public lands to the states who did not have business interests in mind.

The people I met who talked about local control of land in those states were solidly against any recreational usage of the land. A great many complaints come from the mining industry, the rest from agricultural/ ranchers who want to ensure no one gets access to public land that they lease.

As near as I can tell, the ONLY thing the President’s decision changes is the protected status of the lands formerly within the monuments.

The lands can now be open to commercial usage - everything from lines to ranching to commercial recreation to home building. Any commercial usage of the land would normally require open bids, public comments and environmental impact studies.

Across the nation, the vast majority of public lands are available for commercial usage within the guidelines of the BLM and USFS programs. Even in Utah, more of the public land is available for commercial usage than is protected under National Monument/ National Park status.

[4runnerguy]

I think that the discussion about the two NM's really should be separate as they are two quite different areas.

In exploring Bears Ears NM, we have found numerous Native American ruins and artifacts in so many places. Just heading out on foot will often allow one to spot these items. (No, we would never collect or move these items.) We've been to places where there are still corn cobs left in place. We've been to cliff dwellings where the stone doors to the storage rooms are still in place and intact. What I find amazing is that some of the places that are being excluded from the NM have a greater density of ruins and artifacts than many of the places that will continue to be NM's (like Canyons of the Ancients). Cedar Mesa and Grand Gulch specifcally come to mind. This makes no sense to me.

Mortimer Brewster wrote:
Here’s an interesting article on Bears Ears
What you need to know about the Bears Ears controversy

One thing that's misleading about this article is that the state of Utah will regain control over the area. From my maps, less than 10% of the land within the Bears Ear NM is state land. Most of the rest is either BLM or NFS land. The state won't be regaining control over that land. But protections will be much less.

Escalante Grand Staircase is different in that it preserves mostly beauty and vistas rather than Native American artifacts. There are some quite unique features, including some slot canyons that are quite fun to explore. There are parts that don't seem to have the intrinsic value I would expect in a NM, but I must admit I haven't walked some of the large flat landscapes to see if there are artifacts.

2oldman wrote:
Opportunities for drilling, mining and fracking. And rescinding anything Obama did. That's the CNN version anyway, and knowing Trump, that's what this is about.

I think there is something to this. I would note that the name "Bears Ears National Monument" is going away completely and the remaining parts are now named Indian Creek NM and Shash Jaa NM, as if to erase the Obama imprint.

Finally, there is so much being said about how the designation of these NM's is job killing. But what actually happens is that a whole lot more new jobs are created, many in the recreation industries. Whether it's guide services, jeep rentals, gas stations, or motels, designation of a NM brings attention and tourists to an area.

Think about Moab. In the 1950's and 1960's, it's main employment was centered around uranium mining. Today, it's centered around tourism, and a quite healthy, booming economy. (Actually there are still uranium related jobs in Moab -- all associated with cleaning up the radioactive mess left behind from uranium mining). Arches and Canyonlands bring in many, many dollars to the area and employment is much higher because of that.

[fanrgs]

This quote is from the 1996 Presidential Proclamation designating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument:

“Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock grazing within federal lands within the monument.”

[profdant139]

Busskipper, very good point -- there is no perfect solution. To keep the area really pristine, we would have to exclude RVs -- ouch! So what I want is that lovely middle ground, where I get to use the land with my RV but we keep out the mining and livestock folks. Sounds kind of self-serving, doesn't it?

But does that mean we need to throw the doors wide open, so that the whole area gets trampled by industrial use?

And who gets to decide all of this?

[Busskipper]

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
Just saw on Fox News site that Trump has rolled back some of the lands that were converted in past years to National Park lands.
Supposedly Utah folks were asking for these lands to be reopened, and there were comments about increasing access.
From you folks out there that have been using these areas, and seen the effects of new designations, is there a benefit to this change?
Will new opportunities present themselves?

na·tion·al mon·u·ment
noun
plural noun: national monuments
a historic site or geographical area set aside by a national government and maintained for public use.

Not defined - mainly because IMHO it is Undefinable is "Public Use"

As is usually the case when politics and RVing mix, there are no real answers that make everyone/anyone Happy.

So I'd ask - Without looking at the Map/Googling, did you Know where these areas were?

Have you visited these areas? Before the National Monument status or after?

What Changed?

How much is too Much - how big is too Big?

After Trump shrinks Bears Ears, it will still be larger than Zion and Bryce combined

Historically the reason for the The Antiquities Act of 1906 was deemed necessary after two decades of looting, desecration, and destruction of Native American sites in the Southwest such as Chaco Canyon and Cliff Palace.

Just a few thought/Facts that will not make anything clearer - but will just add to the discussion.

I've been, many times over the years to Utah, through these areas, it is a truly Beautiful State, and I really can say there is no EASY solution. These areas, have changed little over the Years to the outsider like myself who drives through or visits for a short period of time. One of the things that has always amazed me in my travels are the areas that are still wild/untamed/unregulated - and while I honestly enjoy taking a ride into an area with limited regulations, I can foresee the time when some controls will be need to protect these areas from ourselves, from being - over explored - over loved - over used - but then again they can also be Over Regulated. No Easy Solution, No Correct answer, Nothing that can work for everyone.

And IMHO No Solution will satisfy everyone/anyone.


Hope this Post stays Civil - and that the discussion centers around solutions that focus on "Public Use" in the many and varied definitions/interpretations, as this needs to include not just RV'ers but Ranchers - Native Americans - and others who feel the need to have the Federal Government Own/Manage/Control, Private lands.


Keep the conversations Civil,

JMHO,

[kerrlakeRoo]

Reading some more, the Antiquities Act was for specific sites to be protected, it even says small sites in the act. Bears Ear last year was a stroke of the pen change for over a million acres.
The area was actually larger than the entire state of Delaware. I havent visited the area, but what I have read says that the primary historical areas are still under the heavier protection, the fears of mining, are understandable, but most appear unfounded as the largest uranium find in Grand Staircase was going to remain in operation anyway.
Not every square inch can be designated "special".
Our National Parks are a treasure, and I dont believe anyone is suggesting damaging them, but with limited budgets it would seem to make sense to concentrate on the truly spectacular locations wnd put the resources in place to preserve them, and to allow multi uses and maximum freedom in the areas where that is possible.

[rocmoc]

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
These areas were under BLM before, were they used often for recreational purposes?

YES, local BLM office in Monticello has a GREAT map of the area showing all the trail from Jeep to ATV (55" only) and campgrounds. We enjoyed the area before and after, No Change in use for Recreation. This is for mining & oil. Some of the best ever Cinnamon Rolls in Blanding & Milk Shakes in Monticello.

rocmoc n AZ

[tuna_fisher]

I camp in the Bears Ear at least once every year, it's are favorite place to go. As far as Escalante it's another favorite. From what I know besides Uranium there large deposits of Coal in the Escalante area. The Moki dugway was built to haul Uranium to Monticello.

[aguablanco]

lc0338 wrote:

pigman1 wrote:
64.9% of the state of Utah is Federal land. A bit much don't you think?
How much Utah is Public Land?

Yep, I agree. Both monuments were expanded by Obama and Clinton under the antiquities act, which was not intended for this purpose. Good to see the over_reach is being resolved.

Here is a quick version of the antiquities act -

President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act in 1906 largely to prevent looting of archaeological and Native American structures and objects. The purpose was to give the federal government an expeditious path to protect archeological sites.

archeological sites are not millions of acres

Section 2 of the antiquities below. Seems there are more resources to be protected than just archaeological sites. Also, I do not see any authorization for any President to shrink any monument. It should also be noted that the Federal Government actually owned 100% of the land prior to Utah becoming a State. The land belongs to the American people and part of it was ceded to Utah to become a State.
RichH
Section 2
That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much as thereof may be necessary for the proper care and management of the objects may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of the United States. (U.S.C., title 16, sec. 431.)

[fanrgs]

profdant139 wrote:
I have read that there are petrochemicals and other minerals, and I am pretty sure that I have boondocked in some of the affected areas.

Nearly all of Utah's uranium was produced in the region that includes those two national monuments. The longest active uranium mill in the state was at Monticello.

[lc0338]

pigman1 wrote:
64.9% of the state of Utah is Federal land. A bit much don't you think?
How much Utah is Public Land?

Yep, I agree. Both monuments were expanded by Obama and Clinton under the antiquities act, which was not intended for this purpose. Good to see the over_reach is being resolved.

Here is a quick version of the antiquities act -

President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act in 1906 largely to prevent looting of archaeological and Native American structures and objects. The purpose was to give the federal government an expeditious path to protect archeological sites.

archeological sites are not millions of acres