Utah Wildlife Forum banner
41 - 60 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,940 Posts
Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.

Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.

I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.

Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.

I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.

It was politicians at the federal level, acting at the behest of thoughtful citizens, who started conservation as we know it today. The notion that Washington hasn't done anything positive since the establishment of the western states is asinine and ahistorical. You can disagree on the modern scope of federal land management but we have the documents, and photographs, of how Western states were fairing historically without federal intervention in regards to a plethora of land and wildlife issues. Our ecosystems would be a whole lot poorer for hunters and fisherman without ground breaking legislation that influenced the world.

Imagine where we'd be without the MBTA and how poor opportunity for waterfowl hunting would be if we'd left that up to the states?

Shaking my head at such ignorant comments. And people mock millennials for their lack of critical thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.

Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.

I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.
Actually, the people have decided. The areas in question are federal land, the people in Utah have no more say in its management than people in Maine, Florida, Washington state, or anybody else. The people elected Congress, Congress passed the Antiquities Act which empowers the President, elected by the people, to designate national monuments. There is no such thing as "overreach" by Washington in the management of federal lands.

Read the editorial and be careful what you wish for. Each of our five national parks were first designated as national monuments. What would have happened to them under state control?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,197 Posts
Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in.
This is no different than Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. These areas are NOT national parks. Wildlife is already managed by the State.

FS.USDA said:
The monument does not change the State of Utah’s jurisdiction as it relates to fish and wildlife management.
Font Number Screenshot Document Terrestrial plant


 
  • Like
Reactions: backcountry

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,521 Posts
Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.

Actually, in polling this issue, leaving the monuments as is runs at 50% support among all of Utah's residents in very "red" Utah. Nationally, they have wide popular support.

Of course, if you find the right subset, they are hugely unpopular. (Residents of the "435" that trace back their residence a minimum of 50 years, but not prior to 1847. Flying a Trump flag in home or truck will allow the residency requirement to be shortened to 20 years ;))
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,126 Posts
Actually, in polling this issue, leaving the monuments as is runs at 50% support among all of Utah's residents in very "red" Utah. Nationally, they have wide popular support.

Of course, if you find the right subset, they are hugely unpopular. (Residents of the "435" that trace back their residence a minimum of 50 years, but not prior to 1847. Flying a Trump flag in home or truck will allow the residency requirement to be shortened to 20 years ;))
A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
I sincerely don't understand this relatively new trend. I fully support questioning the modern scope of federal influence on land management and wildlife. We should be able to have thoughtful disagreement about different preferences and how to interpret new information.

But that is different than revising historical fact to fit our ideology. Wanting small federal influence right now can coexist with a history that involved much needed federal intervention that saved many ecosystems and so much wildlife. Our legacy as hunters and fisherman is largely influenced by what were thoughtful and forward thinking laws and policies of those eras, especially the early 20th century. Not to mention how a generation of federal employees who experienced that dynamic shift at the federal level went on to form the state wildlife and forestry services that we so rely upon now.

If it was a one off I wouldn't be worried but I've seen more of this in the last 5-10 years than is sustainable. I don't think people have thought through the implications of editing out the historic role of the federal government when it comes to fights across stakeholder groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,521 Posts
A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.
OK, I'll bite. Why should I as a resident of the Wasatch front have less of a voice than someone who lives in Cedar City? I still go down there some. Where do you draw the line? Native Americans living in the area have some strong opinions about BENM. Should they be the only voice as to what happens? Or minimized, as some shrinkage proponents would say? That was the point of my previous post.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,126 Posts
OK, I'll bite. Why should I as a resident of the Wasatch front have less of a voice than someone who lives in Cedar City? I still go down there some. Where do you draw the line? Native Americans living in the area have some strong opinions about BENM. Should they be the only voice as to what happens? Or minimized, as some shrinkage proponents would say? That was the point of my previous post.
I'm just saying where the support comes from. If you want to support it that is fine.

As for Native American's know a number of them that are against it, so what does that mean? It just says that people have opinions for and against.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
A problem that I have seen with national support for any monument is that as long as it isn't in my backyard that they will be for it and support it. But when it is in their area the support for it goes way down. I would wager that most of the support for the monument in Utah is coming from the Wasatch Front and most of those people will never visit it.
Ugh, having spent a fair amount of my explorations in both GSENM and BENM I find that an odd wager. The Wasatch Front has a disproportionate amount of visitors to both areas.

Not to mention the well studied outcome that monument, wilderness and park designations become a principle driver of economic change for the region. The primary tourism users are the outsiders. Designation is often cited as a principle reason for both visiting an area and actually moving there. That demographic shift is ironically demonized and used as a counter argument to designation to begin with, ie preservation of local traditions and culture.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,027 Posts
I was very much a proponent of Utah controlling Utah lands when Clinton dedicated his monument. It had some adverse economic impacts that harmed people I knew and created a bitter taste that lasted for years (good grief, why couldnt Clinton come to Utah to dedicate the monument he created?!) but the long and short of it is that likely this monument designation has probably already created more cash flow through these areas than the initial impact that they created so that is a good thing right?

As Paddler mentioned, these were already Federal Lands that happened to be located in Utah. The State of Utah didn't control them, but the BLM did. So the real designation change from BLM land to monument land created added protections to the land to keep from exploiting the lands.

Truth of the matter is that we can still hunt and recreate in these areas, and hopefully they will stay semi remote with somewhat low traffic. We cant do anything to change it (and after watching the Devil's Love Child Chris Stewart try and sell off rights to the land and make a National Park, I don't want to change it anyways) But the day we run a paved road down some of these areas, is the day we should lose our minds. That will forever change the landscape and make a zoo out of a circus and the clowns and morons will come in droves to etch their names in rock, leave garbage everywhere, steal artifacts, and leave nothing but regret by those who respect the land.

This whole thing is a circular argument though. What's done is done. It was attempted to be undone but was re-done for a final dunning to be done with done and done some more of done. At this point, I am glad its a monument again and hope those elected representatives that tried to mess with our lands are kicked to the curb and replaced with someone who doesn't see dollar signs.

If you want to make a difference, petition to re-evaluate the Antiquities Act for further designations. Ask for more checks and balances and require the designating party to visit the location multiple times before they can actually designate a monument. Require state governments to take a more active part so they cant complain that they were hoodwinked or not given satisfactory option for input. blah blah blah.

Trump may have set precedence on changing monument boundaries and for all we know, the next administration might try to do the same thing.... welcome to the jungle I guess.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,126 Posts
Ugh, having spent a fair amount of my explorations in both GSENM and BENM I find that an odd wager. The Wasatch Front has a disproportionate amount of visitors to both areas.
I know dozens of people who have never been to any of Utah's National Parks and have no interest in even thinking of heading down to Bears Ears, much less to the Grand Staircase. I even know families who live within 100 miles of both and haven't bothered going to explore them.

You have to be interested in this type of country to want to go visit it and as there becomes more and more urban families less and less want to go get dirty. I once had a person ask me about motels, or hotels in these type of areas. Without either they had no plans on going and once there they wouldn't venture much further from their vehicle than the gas pump to fill their vehicle.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,027 Posts
I know dozens of people who have never been to any of Utah's National Parks and have no interest in even thinking of heading down to Bears Ears, much less to the Grand Staircase. I even know families who live within 100 miles of both and haven't bothered going to explore them.

You have to be interested in this type of country to want to go visit it and as there becomes more and more urban families less and less want to go get dirty. I once had a person ask me about motels, or hotels in these type of areas. Without either they had no plans on going and once there they wouldn't venture much further from their vehicle than the gas pump to fill their vehicle.
Thats what has been interesting about Covid. Since people are having harder times visiting normal tourist destinations, they are venturing outdoors to the obscure locations like these more and more.

I was in Escalante at the end of August and stayed at a motel (which I rarely do, but was just there for a night and moved on) and watched the unusual new types of tourists filter up and down the street in the area. It really fascinated me to see the kinds of people venturing out now.

There are some pretty hipster locations there now which really intrigued me. What a strange evolution over time....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,197 Posts
I know dozens of people who have never been to any of Utah's National Parks and have no interest in even thinking of heading down to Bears Ears, much less to the Grand Staircase. ...

You have to be interested in this type of country to want to go visit it and as there becomes more and more urban families less and less want to go get dirty.

That doesn't mean they won't in the future. Or their kids. Or their grandkids.
I could say the same thing about other monuments across the country (Statue of Liberty National Monument?).

This isn't just about what we want today. I hate to use the cliche, but we do need to keep some public places public so that our children have the opportunity. I don't want to see those opportunities removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1DEER 1-I

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,133 Posts
Critter,

No doubt it's a small proportion of citizens in the Wasatch itself. But my experience is a large proportion of people who actually visit those areas are from the SLC region (a outcome I'm fine with). One of the biggest guide services in the area is a Wasatch ex-pat. Plus the Wasatch historically has a larger active and outdoorsy population than most metro regions, a statistic the state often flaunts to attract business.

Both Escalante and Boulder now have front country amenities to attract the growing urban crowd of tourists: yurts, glamping, boutique lodging, etc. It just had a destination race that often attracts runners from metro areas, much like the Moab half marathon. Escalante is a major destination for this growing group of outdoorsman.

Monument designation drives this exact change. It's one of the principle criticisms of BENM as the crowds have arrived before scaled staffing and infrastructure. Bluff, and maybe Blanding, are likely to experience a type of economic shift and eventually demographic change that's going to ruffle a few feathers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #56 ·
Now we just need Congress to authorize funds to staff our monuments adequately, provide enforcement, visitor centers, education, sanitation, etc. Think our delegation will push for that, or even support it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1DEER 1-I

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
Leave Fed. politics out of land management, hunting, etc. issues all together. It should be left to the State that the area in question is in. The only thing politicians have accomplished since the beginning of the settlement of the States is screw things up.

Place the Bears Ears dilemma on the ballot and let "the people" decide what they want. Then WE are the ones to blame if it goes sideways.

I don't have a dog in the fight and don't give a hoot what happens either way. Just don't like the "overreach" of Washington.
The people did decide. They elected councils closest to the monument who voted for Biden to do exactly what he did. Do you just want to ignore that fact? Grand and San Juan County councils voted for exactly what Biden did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
Now we just need Congress to authorize funds to staff our monuments adequately, provide enforcement, visitor centers, education, sanitation, etc. Think our delegation will push for that, or even support it?
No. Like always they’ll vote against any sort of funding to ensure it isn’t successful and then cry about federal management that they in large part have the keys to fix. (Pst, they just hate public land and want every excuse they can find to make their argument it shouldn’t be a thing)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bax*

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
Now we just need Congress to authorize funds to staff our monuments adequately, provide enforcement, visitor centers, education, sanitation, etc. Think our delegation will push for that, or even support it?
Not likely on both counts but that is what really needs to happen. I won't hold my breath. The Department of the Interior is massively under funded now as is. But who knows? It may be a line item in the current budget discussions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
All of ya applauding the monuments please answer this question for me? Have you been to Arches? Have you seen the crowding and pollution and noise that has come to that place as a Park? Anytime these areas are "discovered" they get ruined for me. I've spent my life on the Bears Ears and Staircase country. The only thing the monument designation will bring is hoards of people and ruin it. Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? I don't need a ranger to point at the pretty spots. Heck even both Cottonwood canyons are overcrowded messes. People = problems. I much prefer solitude. You know, the way it was before the government showed up and "saved it"! I'm the new guy here and I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I cant see a single value for the land or it's resources and history that will be better as a monument. More full motels in Monticello helps the pocketbooks there. More cars and ATVs and campers flooding Elk mountain or the Escalante desert will only destroy what makes them special. My 2 cents
 
41 - 60 of 84 Posts
Top