Utah Wildlife Forum banner
61 - 80 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
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.
Yes people have opinions. And the council in San Juan County, those who were elected, ran off the issue and openly said they supported expansion of the monument. They were elected on the issue. The real crux is people shout local control, until like I said, a majority Native American council votes in support of expansion. The local council did ask for this. Of course there are some people who won’t agree, there always is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 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.
I’ll state this a fourth time to underscore it. Both local county councils closest in proximity to the monument voted in favor of returning it to its full designation. I’m sorry if you want to continually and willfully ignore the Native American voices who now sit on the council, but the support is also local.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
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.

“Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the ‘the game belongs to the people.’ So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.”

-Theodore Roosevelt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 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
I am all for people experiences the outdoors and visiting the areas. I do get the idea of loving something to death and it’s a real thing, however, I want more and more proponents of wild places and wild things, and exposure is a part of the recipe that creates them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 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
The spotlighting effect on monuments after designation is a real issue that isn't ever fully addressed. Management policy tries to mitigate some of the most egregious impacts, like campfire bans or wag bags in GSENM, but I'm skeptical it's enough. From reporting I've seen BENM is already experiencing the impacts of rapidly increasing visitation since the original proclamation.

But claims about no net positive miss the mark. The GSENM designation increased funding and access for scientific research; it's not by accident that the paleontological findings there have gained steam in the last 15 years. Not to mention transportation plans that reduce the ever splintering of two tracks throughout the desert region. The designation also had the positive impact of attracting eco-tourism that resulted in programs like the tamarisk removal program to try and help restore native flora. The list is finite but not small.

I to miss the solitude the monument once granted. I eventually resorted to winter backpacking trips to find it before largely turning away from explorations of the region when crowds really started arriving about 6+ years ago. But nonetheless I would never have visited the place at the turn of the century if it weren't for the designation and I'm grateful for such impactful experiences for 10+ years. Not to mention both monuments were "discovered" in the 60s by tourist and the plethora of guidebooks show that the first round of discovery had an impact as well. Recreation there isn't new itself, it's the scale that had truly changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,026 Posts
I am all for people experiences the outdoors and visiting the areas. I do get the idea of loving something to death and it’s a real thing, however, I want more and more proponents of wild places and wild things, and exposure is a part of the recipe that creates them.
Sierra Club 101. Promote saving wilderness by promoting over use. And while there are many levels of impact.at a basic level people will impact it with any use.

One only has to look at the Monolith debacle last spring to see how instantaneous the impact can be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,179 Posts
Cowboy -- all those issues you pointed out? I'll take them over a fence in front of a gas well with a sign that reads: Keep Out.

but I'm crazy like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
Sierra Club 101. Promote saving wilderness by promoting over use. And while there are many levels of impact.at a basic level people will impact it with any use.

One only has to look at the Monolith debacle last spring to see how instantaneous the impact can be.
It’s like saying hunter recruitment is a bad thing because so many people are hunting in your spots. I agree places can become over-used. So make the designation bigger, make more designations, and spread them across our public lands. Humans impact everything I agree. I bristle at the notion that we shouldn’t designate areas because other Americans who aren’t you might come and enjoy those public lands. It’s also good for local economies in rural areas of the state who are largely drying up and seeing the world and markets pass them by. It is a good, sustainable, economic driver. I think there are many parts to the conversation. 328 million people. I would rather many of them become advocates for wild places, than never touch or see any of them. I’d rather they visit these places and become proponents of them, than never have a second thought about them. Our public lands, even just regular old forest service and BLM have seen increased human pressure and visitation. And yes it annoys me as well when I’m out there, but at the same time, they have every reason, right, and hopefully good motivation to be out there as myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
The hunter recruitment comparison is apt for Utah.

But there is a difference between promoting designation and promoting visitation. The Sierra Club model Middlefork references deserves criticism in my book as well. It was born in an era in which mass mobilization was one of a few choices for dealing with both sudden change (that often has broad, landscape wide implications) and the sudden lessons of the new fields of conservation and what would become ecology.

But it's antiquated. We no longer need to recruit large swaths of individuals to visit these locals in order to protect them. Not only that but we now have data dealing with a sort of recreational carrying capacity that was clearly lacking in that era. But the recreational industrial complex is somewhat self-serving in it's desire to associate place with it's product. That doesn't mean many of these organizations don't care about conservation but there is an inherent hypocrisy/paradox to their strategy.

I say that as someone who was part of the cycle and could no longer participate because of the impacts I saw.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,025 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


Arches - National park. Not a monument.
Yellowstone - National park. Not a monument.
Grand Canyon- National park. Not a monument.

GSENM was surveyed by the BLM and the #1 reason for visiting was because people wanted solitude.

Turning these into National Parks would definitely ruin that idea. Its already busy out there, and the more we publicize this, the more attention it garners, the more attention the more desire to visit, more visitors, less solitude, more noise, more people.

But since 1996 when it was first designated, I mostly have had places to myself until the last 5 or so years. One famous waterfall that I wont mention here (no hotspotting sorry) I once had to myself for 2 hours or more.... now its a constant stream of people.

But the reason I say this is because if Utah had its way, they proposed a National Park! So I disagree with this notion. Utah has proven that it wants $$$. The Federal Government has basically just put regulations on the land use to make it harder to do what Utah seems dead set on ruining.

I once felt the way you do, but would encourage you to look at the history. Utah has a horrible track record on this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,026 Posts
The state of Utah can't compete with the juggernaut of the Federal bureaucracy's. But without funding the of federal government the protection are pretty much non existent. Has anybody seen any?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
The hunter recruitment comparison is apt for Utah.

But there is a difference between promoting designation and promoting visitation. The Sierra Club model Middlefork references deserves criticism in my book as well. It was born in an era in which mass mobilization was one of a few choices for dealing with both sudden change (that often has broad, landscape wide implications) and the sudden lessons of the new fields of conservation and what would become ecology.

But it's antiquated. We no longer need to recruit large swaths of individuals to visit these locals in order to protect them. Not only that but we now have data dealing with a sort of recreational carrying capacity that was clearly lacking in that era. But the recreational industrial complex is somewhat self-serving in it's desire to associate place with it's product. That doesn't mean many of these organizations don't care about conservation but there is an inherent hypocrisy/paradox to their strategy.

I say that as someone who was part of the cycle and could no longer participate because of the impacts I saw.
Around the most scenic areas I may agree that over-visitation has become a serious issue. As far as somewhere like Grand Staircase. I can go on 90% of it on a week day and find seclusion still to this day. If you’re visiting the actual tourist designations within the monuments I can see why there’s a too many people problem. However, what Trump did was concentrate that tourism to an even more narrow area no protect less. The vastness of a couple million acres is what makes the monuments special imo. They aren’t national parks, nor are there attractions among most of the acreage that will attract anything near what a place like Zion does. By the way….didn’t Chris Stewart propose turning parts of Grand Staircase into a national park? Give me a 2 million acre monument designation that has largely worked just fine instead and leave it the **** alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
The state of Utah can't compete with the juggernaut of the Federal bureaucracy's. But without funding the of federal government the protection are pretty much non existent. Has anybody seen any?
No. Because people like Mike Lee and Chris Stewart will undermine federal management and funding every chance they get to further their agenda and public land talking points. They literally hold the keys to do the things your speaking of such as funding and fixing policies but instead the sit around and harp about how bad federal management is. THEY ARE THE FEDS AND THEY SET POLICY AND FUNDING. They sit around and bitch at the very problem they create. People like Mike Lee have no interest in better federal land management. They have interest in undermining it to further their motives because they don’t like it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
Arches - National park. Not a monument.
Yellowstone - National park. Not a monument.
Grand Canyon- National park. Not a monument.

GSENM was surveyed by the BLM and the #1 reason for visiting was because people wanted solitude.

Turning these into National Parks would definitely ruin that idea. Its already busy out there, and the more we publicize this, the more attention it garners, the more attention the more desire to visit, more visitors, less solitude, more noise, more people.

But since 1996 when it was first designated, I mostly have had places to myself until the last 5 or so years. One famous waterfall that I wont mention here (no hotspotting sorry) I once had to myself for 2 hours or more.... now its a constant stream of people.

But the reason I say this is because if Utah had its way, they proposed a National Park! So I disagree with this notion. Utah has proven that it wants $$$. The Federal Government has basically just put regulations on the land use to make it harder to do what Utah seems dead set on ruining.

I once felt the way you do, but would encourage you to look at the history. Utah has a horrible track record on this issue.
Chris Stewart proposed turning part of Grand Staircase into a national park. Grand Staircase is a place you can absolutely still get lost in solitude in most of its acreage. The Pauns bolsters one of the best mule deer herds on earth and hunters wait in line 20 years just for the opportunity to hunt on what is part of Grand Staircase. Monument designation has done nothing but protect its future and some vital desert mule deer habitat and corridors for one of the best mule deer herds on earth.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Bax*

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Around the most scenic areas I may agree that over-visitation has become a serious issue. As far as somewhere like Grand Staircase. I can go on 90% of it on a week day and find seclusion still to this day. If you’re visiting the actual tourist designations within the monuments I can see why there’s a too many people problem. However, what Trump did was concentrate that tourism to an even more narrow area no protect less. The vastness of a couple million acres is what makes the monuments special imo. They aren’t national parks, nor are there attractions among most of the acreage that will attract anything near what a place like Zion does. By the way….didn’t Chris Stewart propose turning parts of Grand Staircase into a national park? Give me a 2 million acre monument designation that has largely worked just fine instead and leave it the **** alone.
But monuments weren't designed to protect "the vastness of a couple million acres". A couple million acres may be necessary to protect the many objects being protected but inverting that was never the point. If the goal is vastness then we need a new law (at my core I support landscape scale management like that but for it to be sustainable it needs to be done in a forthright manner).

I wasn't for what Trump did, even it was politically expedient on his part. I'm not a fan of what Stewart planned either.

You may be correct about the 90% based upon acreage but that's a deceptive metric given how much of that acreage simply interconnects what most people are interested in experiencing from the monument. I've slogged across a lot of sand and ephedra covered benches out there but it was the cost of admission not the goal. Ultimately the metric you used ignores just how popular what were once secondary and tertiary elements of the region are now(areas I loved visiting for the solitude). You can see it in the expansion of recommendations in monument literature. Once obscure campgrounds are now listed out in the open at the visitor center and see people more into the fringe season each year. Not to mention membership sites listing vast amounts of places, the magazines giving away another "unknown" locale, the product catalogues sharing photos of spots you can isolate afterwards on Google Earth, etc. The recreational industrial complex loves that canyon country.

Yes, the busloads and RVs full of people largely stay in the well known hot spots. But increased visitation has dispersed people into once remote areas. None of us are entitled to the solitude of those places but it was much easier 15 years ago to find it then it is now. Same can be said for every era before. It's a trend that's hard to ignore and the relatively bustling Escalante tourism economy is just one element of proof just like the need for wag bags in the canyon country has become an indicator of a stressed region (not the e. Coli leaching outhouses in Coyote/etc in the late 90s to early aughts were ever a sustainable idea).

I'm not saying the counter proposals are better. However the recreational economy has never been transparent about it's broad impact. There are negative consequences to our strategies and we don't have to be stuck in decades old conservation paradigms that come at such costs. That's especially true if we have goals beyond the proclamation itself.

(*And for clarity, people clearly have a right to visit. I don't critique that at all. I'm critiquing the recreational boosterism (by the state, recreational corporations, etc) that has outlasted its usefulness and justifications.). I sincerely hope the university programs and agencies are seeking creative new solutions.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
Chris Stewart proposed turning part of Grand Staircase into a national park. Grand Staircase is a place you can absolutely still get lost in solitude in most of its acreage.
he sure did 🤬😡

I’ve written his office several times about it as a matter of fact.

He is Utah’s Judas IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
But monuments weren't designed to protect "the vastness of a couple million acres". A couple million acres may be necessary to protect the many objects being protected but inverting that was never the point. If the goal is vastness then we need a new law (at my core I support landscape scale management like that but for it to be sustainable it needs to be done in a forthright manner).

I wasn't for what Trump did, even it was politically expedient on his part. I'm not a fan of what Stewart planned either.

You may be correct about the 90% based upon acreage but that's a deceptive metric given how much of that acreage simply interconnects what most people are interested in experiencing from the monument. I've slogged across a lot of sand and ephedra covered benches out there but it was the cost of admission not the goal. Ultimately the metric you used ignores just how popular what were once secondary and tertiary elements of the region are now(areas I loved visiting for the solitude). You can see it in the expansion of recommendations in monument literature. Once obscure campgrounds are now listed out in the open at the visitor center and see people more into the fringe season each year. Not to mention membership sites listing vast amounts of places, the magazines giving away another "unknown" locale, the product catalogues sharing photos of spots you can isolate afterwards on Google Earth, etc. The recreational industrial complex loves that canyon country.

Yes, the busloads and RVs full of people largely stay in the well known hot spots. But increased visitation has dispersed people into once remote areas. None of us are entitled to the solitude of those places but it was much easier 15 years ago to find it then it is now. Same can be said for every era before. It's a trend that's hard to ignore and the relatively bustling Escalante tourism economy is just one element of proof just like the need for wag bags in the canyon country has become an indicator of a stressed region (not the e. Coli leaching outhouses in Coyote/etc in the late 90s to early aughts were ever a sustainable idea).

I'm not saying the counter proposals are better. However the recreational economy has never been transparent about it's broad impact. There are negative consequences to our strategies and we don't have to be stuck in decades old conservation paradigms that come at such costs. That's especially true if we have goals beyond the proclamation itself.

(*And for clarity, people clearly have a right to visit. I don't critique that at all. I'm critiquing the recreational boosterism (by the state, recreational corporations, etc) that has outlasted its usefulness and justifications.). I sincerely hope the university programs and agencies are seeking creative new solutions.
For the first part, I get the intent of the Act, but protection of areas and antiquities can go hand in hand. If protecting the antiquities also permanently protects a couple million acres of vast landscapes I support it.

And as for the increased visitation. America’s public lands just aren’t a secret anymore. There’s a lot of people on this world and country, and there’s a lot that want to go outdoors. Welcome to a capitalist society. Of course recruitment of new people outdoors has business motivations. One thing I wish would pass and would seriously support is a tax on a bigger variety of outdoor apparel and gear to go towards management and conservation like the taxes we pay on ammo and firearms. More investment is certainly needed from all these new “non-consumptive” users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #78 ·
Arches - National park. Not a monument.
Yellowstone - National park. Not a monument.
Grand Canyon- National park. Not a monument.

GSENM was surveyed by the BLM and the #1 reason for visiting was because people wanted solitude.

Turning these into National Parks would definitely ruin that idea. Its already busy out there, and the more we publicize this, the more attention it garners, the more attention the more desire to visit, more visitors, less solitude, more noise, more people.

But since 1996 when it was first designated, I mostly have had places to myself until the last 5 or so years. One famous waterfall that I wont mention here (no hotspotting sorry) I once had to myself for 2 hours or more.... now its a constant stream of people.

But the reason I say this is because if Utah had its way, they proposed a National Park! So I disagree with this notion. Utah has proven that it wants $$$. The Federal Government has basically just put regulations on the land use to make it harder to do what Utah seems dead set on ruining.

I once felt the way you do, but would encourage you to look at the history. Utah has a horrible track record on this issue.
For the first part, I get the intent of the Act, but protection of areas and antiquities can go hand in hand. If protecting the antiquities also permanently protects a couple million acres of vast landscapes I support it.

And as for the increased visitation. America’s public lands just aren’t a secret anymore. There’s a lot of people on this world and country, and there’s a lot that want to go outdoors. Welcome to a capitalist society. Of course recruitment of new people outdoors has business motivations. One thing I wish would pass and would seriously support is a tax on a bigger variety of outdoor apparel and gear to go towards management and conservation like the taxes we pay on ammo and firearms. More investment is certainly needed from all these new “non-consumptive” users.
Defining and taxing what is and what is not "outdoor apparel" would be difficult. Better to reverse the Trump/Republican tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy. Revising our tax system, while at the same time funding the IRS to improve enforcement so that tax avoidance and evasion is reduced or eliminated could fund those agencies that have had their budgets cut back for so long. We could maintain our national parks, catch up on what I've heard is a huge maintenance backlog, fund our monuments, etc.

I'm not at all opposed to user fees, and in fact they make lots of sense. The question is how to fairly charge non-consumptive users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,927 Posts
Let's step back 150 years or more and take a look at what was here before we came into the picture. I'm sure the lands were pristine and beautiful. The Native Americans were taking care of "Mother Earth" and helped settlers as they began to occupy the area. Little did they know that the "White Man" would take advantage of them and push them out to keep the land (mother earth) for themselves and eventually begin screwing it up.

As much as we (Government) try to "protect" the land from the beast we created and in someway do our best to reverse the damage created, it tends to go sideways most the time. If we could turn back the clock, what would we change in these types of issues??

Whatever happens to the Ears, I hope it is for ALL the people, not just a push for political bias.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,179 Posts
Has anybody seen any?
I haven't seen any new gas wells.
I haven't seen any new fences / gates with "Keep Out" signs.

I have seen a lot of beautiful country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1DEER 1-I
61 - 80 of 84 Posts
Top