Utah Wildlife Forum banner
81 - 84 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
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.
I agree on a new tax. It's long overdue.

Millions of acres going hand in hand with protection is radically different than saying size it what makes them special. The size argument you made is inconsistent with the Act and feeds the resistance to designations. I hope you are willing to admit how such claims you used in your previous post is part of the current yo-yo cycle. It's an inescapable observation as it's been brought up on this very thread and the counter argument holds legitimate weight.

We clearly diverge on acceptance of the current model. As I said before, there is a difference between individuals seeking out these places on their own as an understandable part of their franchise of public lands. That is the basal usage that will always exist and likely grow on its own. But the additional level of recruitment can be debated and affected. We don't have to rely upon commercial enterprise for conservation (at least the initial designation) but we currently do to a large extent. Getting past that means an honest accounting and not simply writing it off as inevitable. I believe that's necessary if we hope to preserve certain characteristics of the places we conserve. I believe the writing is on the wall across such places that if we don't do so soon that we'll loose certain experiences (for the average visitor who goes past the front country) for generations to come. More and more parks are going to reservations because of outsized demand and to think our monuments are immune, especially with spill over effect in Utah, is to miss an important opportunity that IMHO is paramount to the broad goal of protection.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong over time but the current trajectory (just see reporting on impacts to BENM since Obama's proclamation) isn't a indication of that likelihood.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
You know, the common theme I see with this thread is that everyone seems to agree on one point. We dont want to see the land ruined by over use and for that I am glad.

I havent spent much time in BENM so I cant say much about it but I have spent my entire life in GSENM and dont want to see the land ruined by too much traffic, litter, and mining. And I want to keep the opportunity for solitude in this area that I so desperately seek in my busy life.

There is a reason people are so passionate about these areas because they hold a certain magic that is hard to describe unless you've experienced it yourself.

I have never been a fan of Sierra Club or SUWA, but I am starting to feel more compassion toward their cause (not so much their organizations though). When we take a 10,000' overview the issue is plain as day. But when we are at ground level, sometimes its hard to see the entire picture. But I would encourage you to find common ground on the topic because I think we have more in common once politics are ignored (easier said than done).

As an ex-scoutmaster and father, it has been vitally important to me to teach proper stewardship and respect for our lands. I hope that although we may not agree on the methodology of protection, that we can all agree that protecting our lands is important and that everyone should be teaching these principles to their children, grandchildren, and friends.

I genuinely dont want to see a yo-yo perpetuated throughout administrations on this topic and hope that Trump's actions arent a glimpse into future of politics regarding land use and protection. Not so much because he was right or wrong, but because it creates a perpetual limbo status that nobody wants.

Although I am still relatively young, I already find myself reflecting on the "good ol days" and find change to be harder and harder as I get older. Sometimes it is good to leave things as is, sometimes change is good. I just hope that the change we advocate for with land usage is beneficial for generations to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,808 Posts
I agree on a new tax. It's long overdue.

Millions of acres going hand in hand with protection is radically different than saying size it what makes them special. The size argument you made is inconsistent with the Act and feeds the resistance to designations. I hope you are willing to admit how such claims you used in your previous post is part of the current yo-yo cycle. It's an inescapable observation as it's been brought up on this very thread and the counter argument holds legitimate weight.

We clearly diverge on acceptance of the current model. As I said before, there is a difference between individuals seeking out these places on their own as an understandable part of their franchise of public lands. That is the basal usage that will always exist and likely grow on its own. But the additional level of recruitment can be debated and affected. We don't have to rely upon commercial enterprise for conservation (at least the initial designation) but we currently do to a large extent. Getting past that means an honest accounting and not simply writing it off as inevitable. I believe that's necessary if we hope to preserve certain characteristics of the places we conserve. I believe the writing is on the wall across such places that if we don't do so soon that we'll loose certain experiences (for the average visitor who goes past the front country) for generations to come. More and more parks are going to reservations because of outsized demand and to think our monuments are immune, especially with spill over effect in Utah, is to miss an important opportunity that IMHO is paramount to the broad goal of protection.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong over time but the current trajectory (just see reporting on impacts to BENM since Obama's proclamation) isn't a indication of that likelihood.
Should I have said “what makes them special to me”? I mean we are at a sort of semantics argument on that part. The fact the monuments are so large and vast is what makes them unique and special to me. And the fact those landscapes are protected by designation. I didn’t say that was the actual reasoning for the designation. Now people like Mike Lee should be doing all they can to legislate policy and funding on the monuments to make them a success. Instead people like himself will just continue to undermine the idea and existence of public lands or monuments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Bax,

I hope the shared passion of place and the commons is self-evident.

My criticisms are largely reflective of my belief that we should shine the light as brightly on our alliances and ideas as much as we do opposition. I'm pro-monument myself I just happen to believe we've failed to investigate and mitigate the lessons of the past twenty years.

1 Eye,

I probably wouldn't focus on the size issue if the trend of huge monuments wasn't so obvious over time. I think it's a positive feedback cycle that as more people vocalize what you have, and it's a common enough refrain, that president's start to feed that desire. We both know that trend is in stark contrast to political opposition which itself feeds a different base, fundraising for their special interest groups, etc.

I don't support Mike Lee but there are multiple philosophies for governance by senators. I tend to respect his general approach that the role is meant to be advisory not consensus based. It's fair to say he wasn't elected to go along with many of these policies. If we don't like his ideology than it becomes paramount to elect someone else, which I know you tirelessly advocate. Unfortunately for us he's likely to be re-elected especially as the redesignation (and expansion) of BENM just played into his fundraising and campaigning advantage.

And that doesn't even begin to account for the strong possibility who could win the 2024 general election and just downsize these monuments once again. Requesting the courts pause the lawsuits make that a very possible outcome. The entire episode is a debacle in my opinion and is evidence of why I no longer support the current strategy and oppositional structure of land management advocacy. I'm glad the original boundaries of GSENM have been reclaimed but I think it's a short term victory and lacks a certain wisdom in regards to our current dilemma. I personally keep coming back to the question of "at what cost?" and I don't think we fully grasp the implications of these political moves. Hopefully I'm wrong as a Sagebrush Rebellion redux coupled with our modern hyper negative partisanship doesn't bode well for anyone.
 
81 - 84 of 84 Posts
Top