Trump will visit Utah to change Bears Ears and Grand Staircase national monuments [Archive]

accadacca

10-27-2017, 12:13 PM

88040

SALT LAKE CITY — The White House announced Friday that President Donald Trump will come to Utah in December for his official announcement on changes to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase national monuments.

Earlier Friday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the president called him to say that he will make reductions to both monuments.

“I was incredibly grateful the president called this morning to let us know that he is approving Secretary (Ryan) Zinke’s recommendation on Bears Ears," Hatch said. "We believe in the importance of protecting these sacred antiquities, but Secretary Zinke and the Trump administration rolled up their sleeves to dig in, talk to locals, talk to local tribes and find a better way to do it. We’ll continue to work closely with them moving forward to ensure Utahns have a voice.”

Hatch's office said Trump also agreed to follow the recommendations Zinke made on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Neither set of recommendations have been officially released with any detail.

San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams said he was excited and hopeful over the news and had heard the 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears might possibly be reduced to three smaller protected areas specifically designed to protect cultural resources.

The commission released an official statement after hearing of the phone call.

"As a commission, we are thrilled that the years of meetings, countless hours of discussion and tirelessly dedicated advocacy has resulted in our local voices being heard by President Trump and Secretary Zinke," it said. "We take heart in our shared belief that the people of San Juan will continue to take special care of these magnificent lands. This is our home, no one wants to see it protected and secure for future generations more than we do."

Environmental groups immediately decried the news.

“Despite demands from millions of Americans, Native American tribes, elected officials across the nation, scientists and legal scholars, President Trump continues to move down a path that puts the future of America’s treasured lands at risk," said the Wilderness Society's Jamie Williams in a statement. "Any efforts to take away protections for America’s lands and waters will be met by deep opposition and with the law on our side."

Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said a lawsuit is being drafted and is ready to file once Trump takes official action.

Both controversial monuments in Utah were among a handful across the nation that Zinke, in a leaked report, said need boundary revisions.

The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument of 1.9 million acres was abruptly designated in 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton, to the dismay of Utah's elected leaders.

Former President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears in December last year over the objections of Utah's congressional delegation, its governor and local county commissions.

Since then, Utah's top political leaders have been urging Trump to rescind or drastically reduce the monuments.

Trump ordered a national monument review earlier this year via an executive order, prompting Zinke to visit Utah in May.

Some media outlets have reported Bears Ears could be reduced to as small as 130,000 acres, while Utah Gov. Gary Herbert believes Grand Staircase could be divided into multiple smaller monuments.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46187932

Sandstone Addiction

10-27-2017, 01:47 PM

I wonder where Air Force 1 will land?

I would love to see this.

oldno7

10-27-2017, 01:47 PM

excellent....

rockgremlin

10-27-2017, 03:32 PM

The claim by environmentalists that Native Americans support the monument is a lie.

“Great American lie that all tribes are for Bears Ears NM”
by Darren Parry
Vice Chairman, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation

For thousands of years, our tribal elders would sit down with our young children and tell them stories about our people. The stories were always the same, never a word out of place. Our children were taught life lessons that would help them transition to adulthood. Things have changed.

No longer do we teach our children the old ways. Social media does that now. No longer does our youth listen to and respect our elders. No longer does our youth learn the sacred art of compromise, where the thoughts and ideas of all groups are valuable and that all ideas should be heard and respected.

Instead, our politicians have taught them that it is only important to win at all costs.

This brings me to Bears Ears National Monument. It saddens my heart to see the all or nothing attitudes from everyone involved. The BENM movement has been in the works for a long time. This was discussed long ago by Conservation groups that wanted to protect the lands that we know and love.

They were hesitant at first to get tribes involved, according to their minutes. After all, working with a variety of tribal sovereign governments can be tricky. When their lobbying efforts in Washington, DC stalled, a strategic decision was made to include the Navajo Nation, but not without concerns.

This was a brilliant move on their part. For President Obama to support a National Monument, the local tribes needed to be involved. Tribal governments with the help of conservation groups came together and started the Inter-tribal Coalition.

Since the tribes have gotten involved, they have been at the forefront of this movement. But this was never their idea.

The conservationists have done a wonderful job of pushing the tribal nations to the front to speak for their cause. The fact that the President of the Navajo Nation hadn’t heard of or could even tell you where Bears Ears was located speaks volumes.

This land in San Juan County is sacred to our native people. There is no question that those sacred Native sites need protection. What most people don’t understand is that the Native American cultural sites within the monument were already protected under federal law.

Inviting the world to visit these pristine areas does not protect them any better, but it will exploit them. Increasing popularity does not increase protection.

This land has been used by my native brothers and sisters to gather wood, pick plants that have healing and ceremonial purposes and enrich their lives. This land at times has served as a burial ground and a place to live.

This land has also been used by many local residents of San Juan County, who are good people who work hard every day to make a living. If you go there today, it is a beautiful and peaceful place. It has been taken care of by all of us for the last 100 years, and we will continue to do so.

Back in June of 2016, there was a councilman representing the Northwestern Band of Shoshone who officially signed the Support for Presidential Designation of the Bears Ears National Monument to Protect Cultural, Historical & Natural Resources on Federal Lands in San Juan County, UT under the Utah Tribal Leaders Association.

When the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation signed a resolution supporting our tribal brothers and sisters, we did so because we are family. We will always have unconditional love and support for each other like families do.

However, the councilman did not have the blessing of the tribal Council, nor did he speak on behalf of the Council. It has been increasingly difficult to continue to support Bears Ears NM because all sides, interests, and views are not being represented or heard.

The NW Band of Shoshone does not support the Bears Ears National Monument. I disagree with environmental group’s decision to utilize the tribes inside the Inter-tribal Coalition.

This monument was inducted and accomplished without official consultation and significant participation of the NW Band of Shoshone. We believe this takes away the rights and freedoms of many to express their beliefs and views.

This designation is not in the best interests and welfare of not only Shoshone people, but of all Utahan’s who love the land of their heritage.

There is an old saying among my people that says, “What if I told you that the left wing and the right wing all belong to the same bird.”

It is my hope as a tribal leader, as a citizen of the most beautiful state on earth, and as a steward of all things given to us by the Great Spirit, that we can all come together and sit down as a group and make a decision that is in the best interest of everyone.

I am currently working with other tribal leaders to help educate them to the real issues that are involved. This is not a good deal for tribes. They need to understand this. The great American lie is that all tribes are for the Bears Ears National Monument. They are not!

Read more: San Juan Record - Classifieds, Events, Businesses in Monticello, San Juan County, Utah - Shoshone Tribe pulls support for Bears Ears

Iceaxe

10-27-2017, 05:17 PM

The tree huggers and forest fairies are going to go bat s**t crazy over this...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171028/9bf5bff1fb49ad4dd595f4ca77890daa.jpg

Scott P

10-27-2017, 07:59 PM

The claim by environmentalists that Native Americans support the monument is a lie.

This isn't true. All tribes close to Bears Ears support the Monument:

http://bearsearscoalition.org/about-the-coalition/tribal-statements-of-support/

So do a lot of tribes and bands farther from the Monument.

The Western Band of Shoshone Nation is one of the very few bands who don't support the Monument, but they aren't close to the monument. They live around Brigham City and Pocatello Idaho and they only number about 400 people.

This is compared to the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans that support the Monument.

By way of comparison, statistically you would be much more likely to find a black student at BYU as you would finding a native American opposing the Monument.

Iceaxe

10-27-2017, 09:28 PM

By way of comparison, statistically you would be much more likely to find a black student at BYU as you would finding a native American opposing the Monument.

By way of comparison if BYU had more black students their football team (1-7) wouldn't suck so bad... Just sayin'

Anyhoo... What was you point again?

rockgremlin

10-28-2017, 10:22 AM

Scott P - the article I posted isn't the only one I've seen. When news first broke I read articles that claimed the local tribal leaders in and around the four corners area opposed the monument because they felt they would be relinquishing control of the lands to the Feds, and wouldn't have a voice in how those lands are maintained and administered, which is a valid point imo.

If the Native Americans are concerned about conserving these lands and preserving their heritage the absolute worst way to go about that is to relinquish the lands to the Feds so they can make a national park out of it and turn it into Disneyland.

DirkHammergate

11-29-2017, 06:38 PM

Dirk will be at the Rally Saturday.... Maybe Trump will again degrade the legacy of Pocahontas and the Navajo Code Talkers who are actual true American Heros behind another Andrew Jackson painting.

Sombeech

11-29-2017, 06:56 PM

Dirk will be at the Rally Saturday.... Maybe Trump will again degrade the legacy of Pocahontas and the Navajo Code Talkers who are actual true American Heros behind another Andrew Jackson painting.

This reminds me of the type of people upset when a child dresses up as an American Indian for Halloween, but have no problem with Liz Warren pretending to be Native American to advance her career and get free stuff.

Oh and by the way, the Navajo Code Talkers replied about the Pocahontas comment and laughed it off, said they had no problem with it. They were told to yell "Geronimo" while jumping out of the airplane and didn't care about it then either.

I think the most offensive thing should be how we all think these Native American badass warriors are a bunch of panzy snowflakes that get butt-hurt because of a football team mascot or Trump calling some idiot woman imposter "Pocahontas". That doesn't seem to match their warrior-like personalities.

Iceaxe

11-29-2017, 07:18 PM

^^^THIS^^^

The snowflakes were all butt hurt that the code talkers really don't give a shit about Pocahontas (Warren). LMAO

DirkHammergate

11-29-2017, 07:54 PM

I disagree, we can all get the news we want from the source we want. That's sort of the point of what is currently happening. Look, I thought Hillary was absolutely the worst candidate the dems could run last year. I called it in July that Trump would win, frankly a squirrel would have done better. Also, I do think this country suffers from too much political correctness especially from places like Berkeley that used to be the bastion of free speech, but the optics of that were terrible. In front of an Andrew Jackson painting? I'm "sure" native Americans are "okay" and don't give a "shit" about that.

Go ahead, shrug it off on to Liberals. You're mildly retarded if think Washington Redskins isn't offensive to natives. What if a team say, in the South was called The Atlanta Blackskins?

Iceaxe

11-29-2017, 08:26 PM

:-)https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171130/d99e88112f64fd1d814a29c288bbebeb.jpg

DirkHammergate

11-29-2017, 08:51 PM

So, is there where I go to "I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you?"

Sombeech

11-30-2017, 08:37 AM

I disagree, we can all get the news we want from the source we want.

I heard it come out of the mouths of the Navajo Code Talker, from his wheelchair, I saw his mouth moving and it matched the words I heard and everything.

He and his fellow Navajo laughed it off. Like for reals.

But unfortunately, there are some White people once again overstepping their boundaries and trying to come in and defend these guys, and they do not want our stupid protection.

The guys had every chance, and every right to roll their eyes at the Pocahontas comment, or to object to it and say how offensive it was. Do you realize how blown up the news would be right now if they actually objected to Trump's comment? We would be hearing about it for a month how Trump is an Injun Killer, right after Thanksgiving, the holiday where we celebrate genocide and all that Liberal BULLSHIT.

But.... these Navajos, the ones who were feet away from Trump when he said it, have not protested one bit. Is it because they are too weak? Do they need Whitey to step in and protect them because they were "drunker than 10 Indians" and weren't really listening to Trump? No, they were sober, they were alert, and they laughed it off because Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Indian to get free stuff and that shit is hilarious.

And it just gets more funny as time goes by.

I believe in empowering them, and it doesn't mean hovering over them and suggesting what to be offended about.

Sombeech

11-30-2017, 08:57 AM

Talk about choosing your sources. So much conflict on this one!

Trevor Noah actually defends Trump's Pocahontas comment.

You can hear the crushing inaudible heartbreaking disappointment of the crowd, they have been so hurt by his defense of this racist man!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Y6JhOVYqw

Brian in SLC

11-30-2017, 09:03 AM

The guys had every chance, and every right to roll their eyes at the Pocahontas comment, or to object to it and say how offensive it was. Do you realize how blown up the news would be right now if they actually objected to Trump's comment? We would be hearing about it for a month how Trump is an Injun Killer, right after Thanksgiving, the holiday where we celebrate genocide and all that Liberal BULLSHIT.

But.... these Navajos, the ones who were feet away from Trump when he said it, have not protested one bit. Is it because they are too weak? Do they need Whitey to step in and protect them because they were "drunker than 10 Indians" and weren't really listening to Trump? No, they were sober, they were alert, and they laughed it off because Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Indian to get free stuff and that shit is hilarious.

And it just gets more funny as time goes by.

I believe in empowering them, and it doesn't mean hovering over them and suggesting what to be offended about.

No, they "laughed it off" because they have some class and respect. Unlike the person who made the racial slur. My bet is they don't even know who Warren is.

And...you're suggesting what they might be laughing about. Aren't you "hovering over them" too?

http://www.azfamily.com/story/36941478/trumps-pocahontas-jab-stuns-families-of-navajo-war-vets

How low does Trump have to go?

Sombeech

11-30-2017, 09:11 AM

:roflol:

accadacca

11-30-2017, 09:20 AM

Breaking: Pres. Trump to cut Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase by 50%.

------
SALT LAKE CITY — President Donald Trump intends to reduce the size of the Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by half, according to a report by the Washington Post Thursday.

The newspaper cited "individuals close to the matter," speaking on the condition of anonymity who cautioned that there could be some changes before Trump announces the changes in Salt Lake City on Monday.

Maps of the proposed changes were leaked to the newspaper, a source told the Deseret News. The Post reported that both monuments will be split into several smaller monuments.

Bears Ears would be cut from 1.35 million acres to 201,397 acres and Grand Staircase, from nearly 1.9 milllion acres to 997,490 acres, according to the report.

The White House is expected to confirm details of the event later today, but the Post reported it will be at the Utah Capitol in front of a crowd of supporters. Backers of changes to the monument from southern Utah are expected to be in the audience.

The president's trip was announced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, earlier this week. Hatch said the president will also meet with LDS Church leaders and tour the church's Welfare Square.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46208177&nid=148&title=report-bears-ears-to-be-cut-by-85-percent-grand-staircase-by-half

uintafly

11-30-2017, 09:29 AM

Sombeech

11-30-2017, 09:30 AM

SALT LAKE CITY — President Donald Trump intends to reduce the size of the Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by half, according to a report by the Washington Post Thursday.

Wait, so he's declaring a certain ruling over land in Utah without any votes from Utah citizens? That's OUTRAGEOUS! :lol8:

anton_solovyev

11-30-2017, 09:47 AM

Brian in SLC

11-30-2017, 09:53 AM

Wait, so he's declaring a certain ruling over land in Utah without any votes from Utah citizens? That's OUTRAGEOUS! :lol8:

Federal land in Utah.

Remember Johnston's army?

You gonna burn down Fort Douglas or Camp Williams now?

Sombeech

11-30-2017, 10:08 AM

Oh DAMN, now one of Pocahontas' (the real one) descendants comes out and says if she were alive today, she'd be very proud of Trump!

Ouch ouch make it stop

Brian in SLC

12-02-2017, 07:12 PM

During a prayer, San Juan County administrator Kelly Pehrson said, "Father, we're grateful for thy hand touching the president's and having him make the right decision for our county."

Oh...heavenly Father...

Iceaxe

12-02-2017, 09:13 PM

FWIW - 18 times in history a president has shrunk a National Monument so this is nothing new and appears to be well within the presidents power. However it has been over 50 years since a president has used such powers.

Monday should be interesting...

DirkHammergate

12-03-2017, 08:35 AM

Queue the immediate lawsuit which will drag on for years.....

Iceaxe

12-03-2017, 09:39 AM

Queue the immediate lawsuit which will drag on for years.....Maybe... or it could move rather quickly if the law clearly states who has the authority. Also as I stated above there is pressidense in this move which will carry a large amount of weight in a US court.

I have no doubt this will be in the court system for many years, the key will be as to who manages the land and under what conditions after the announcement while the lawsuits are unravelled.

accadacca

12-03-2017, 07:19 PM

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) —
President Donald Trump will visit Utah Monday where he is expected to speak at the Utah State Capitol.

There he is expected to announce the reduction of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments and deliver other remarks at 12:30 p.m.

It was previously announced that Trump would also visit with leaders of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. The meeting was confirmed by Matt Whitlock, a spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch, and who said Hatch invited Trump to meet with church leaders.

Transportation in Salt Lake City will be blocked in some places and delayed after his arrival in Utah on Air Force One.

The Utah Transit Authority alerted media and riders that those planning to utilize bus, TRAX, FrontRunner and street car systems can expect possible brief delays during Trump's visit. Downtown buses may be asked to stop and wait at intersections while trains may be forced to hold their positions prior to reaching rail crossings along the president's motorcade routes.

The visit is the first for Trump since he became president. There are no events scheduled for the public to see or meet the president.

The Sierra Club is organizing a protest on Monday morning on the sidewalks south of the State Capitol on 300 North between Columbus and East Capitol Boulevard.

The club requests protesters to say inside the approved protest zone on the south end of the Capitol grounds. The rally organizers said they would be in place by 10:45 a.m. to ensure Trump sees them as he enters the Capitol. They request those attending to bring their own signs.

It is not clear how long Trump will stay in Salt Lake City, how long his remarks will last or how long he will meet with LDS leaders or if there are other items on his itinerary.

Snow is expected to hit the Wasatch Front ahead of the visit, perhaps making Monday morning's commute an especially slow one.

http://kutv.com/news/local/salt-lake-ready-to-host-trumps-visit

Sombeech

12-04-2017, 08:18 AM

..https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171204/76918317cabcecca7f9e0fb7f3ea799b.jpg

Sombeech

12-04-2017, 11:47 AM

OK, Trump just signed it. How soon can I expect the "Trail Closed" sign at the Wahweap Hoodoos?

rockgremlin

12-04-2017, 11:49 AM

OK, Trump just signed it. How soon can I expect the "Trail Closed" sign at the Wahweap Hoodoos?

In 24.5 years, after all of the lawsuits have been settled.

accadacca

12-04-2017, 01:17 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=vF_Aho7CE1U

88499

uintafly

12-04-2017, 02:25 PM

In 24.5 years, after all of the lawsuits have been settled.

Or in 3 years when a new president makes his own changes.

Looks like HITRR will no longer be part of the monument. Does that mean we can pave it and install a few full hookup rv parks along the way?

rockgremlin

12-04-2017, 04:50 PM

Snippets from the following article: https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46210871&nid=1417&title=opponents-lash-out-after-trump-cuts-down-utah-monuments

"Trump's unprecedented, illegal action is a brutal blow to our public lands, an affront to Native Americans and a disgrace to the presidency," Spivak said. "He wants to hand over these lands to private industry to mine, frack, bulldoze and clear-cut until there's nothing left for our children and grandchildren."

"A statement from the Wilderness Society, a nonprofit land conservation group, voiced fears that loss of monument protections opens the area up for drilling and mining."

"Today, President Trump is sacrificing tribal heritage, paleontological discoveries, and the small-business owners who drive America's outdoor economy, all in the name of coal, oil and uranium."

OK, I've said this before numerous times, and I'm going to repeat myself again. These above quotes are founded on outright lies. Using scare tactics to sway an impressionable (and ignorant) audience. They persistently claim that mining companies are lining up to mine and drill and clear cut the Bears Ears when that is in fact a complete fallacy. There is no coal nor oil in the Bears Ears, and what little uranium there might be has been mined out years ago.

Nobody wants to mine nor drill there. Nobody. So please stop making those ridiculous claims. We are men of action...lies do not become us. :duel:

Iceaxe

12-04-2017, 05:06 PM

Or in 7 years when a new president makes his own changes.

ftfy.... you're welcome.

Iceaxe

12-04-2017, 05:09 PM

"Trump's unprecedented, illegal action is a brutal blow to our public lands, an affront to Native Americans and a disgrace to the presidency," Spivak said. "He wants to hand over these lands to private industry to mine, frack, bulldoze and clear-cut until there's nothing left for our children and grandchildren."

This is a HUGE lie, as what Trump did today has been done 18 times before by past presidents. It's been 50 years since the power was last used, but 18 times a president has used his powers to shrink an existing monument.

Udink

12-04-2017, 07:29 PM

We are men of action...lies do not become us. :duel:
+1 for speaking the truth, +10 for quoting that movie. :D

stefan

12-04-2017, 08:36 PM

Snippets from the following article: https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46210871&nid=1417&title=opponents-lash-out-after-trump-cuts-down-utah-monuments

OK, I've said this before numerous times, and I'm going to repeat myself again. These above quotes are founded on outright lies. Using scare tactics to sway an impressionable (and ignorant) audience. They persistently claim that mining companies are lining up to mine and drill and clear cut the Bears Ears when that is in fact a complete fallacy. There is no coal nor oil in the Bears Ears, and what little uranium there might be has been mined out years ago.

is that why there is a 2015 San Juan Energy Plan that overlaps BENM?

https://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0393.html

Map
http://sanjuancounty.org/sjc-content/documents/LandsCouncil/Lands%20Bill%20-%20Energy%20Zone.pdf

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63J/Chapter8/63J-8-S105.2.html?v=C63J-8-S105.2_2015032320150323

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63J/Chapter8/C63J-8-S105.2_2015032320150323.pdf

BENM overlaps two exploratory oil and gas fields (hatch point and three mile).

Kirkwood is operating very close to the NE boundary of the monument.

from what i've read industry has nominated over 100,000 acres within the boundary or within 1 mile of the boundary of BENM since 2013 for lease sales (shown in red below). 9 are proposed by Kirkwood

88505.

next auction including lands near BENM is in march 2018.

stefan

12-04-2017, 09:13 PM

This is a HUGE lie, as what Trump did today has been done 18 times before by past presidents. It's been 50 years since the power was last used, but 18 times a president has used his powers to shrink an existing monument.

most were relatively small by comparison (and i believe none were challenged in court). cutting by ~1.1 million and ~0.9 million, respectively, is massive.

although zinke cites wilson's cutting of mt olympus nat'l mon. down 300,000+ from teddy roosevelt's 600,000+ acres, as a result of FDR and truman, it's now a 922,000+ acre nat'l park.

Iceaxe

12-04-2017, 10:07 PM

most were relatively small by comparison (and i believe none were challenged in court). cutting by 1.1+ million and ~0.9 million, respectively, is massive.

although zinke cites wilson's cutting of mt olympus nat'l mon. in 1915 down 300,000+ from teddy roosevelt's 600,000+ acres, as a result of FDR and truman, it's now a 922,000+ acre nat'l park.

That the other 18 times were never challenged in court doesn't favor environmentalist as US laws often supports precedents.

That the monuments being discussed are massive in size also doesn't bode well for the Antiquities Act as the act itself limits the monument "to the smallest area compatible".

Environmentalist need to be careful with this case as it could just as easily end with the death of the Antiquities Act as we know it. No matter which side of the argument you fall on you have to agree the Antiquities Act is a massive amount of power for one person to wield without any procedural requirements and without any checks and balances.

oldno7

12-05-2017, 04:52 AM

There will soon be legislation proposing the end or severely reeling in the antiquities act.

It will go through congress and be signed by this President.

Sandstone Addiction

12-05-2017, 09:12 AM

Congressman Stewart just announced the proposed Escalante Canyons National Park.

I hope the SUWA crowd is satisfied now.

uintafly

12-05-2017, 09:28 AM

Congressman Stewart just announced the proposed Escalante Canyons National Park.

I hope the SUWA crowd is satisfied now.

You're gonna pin that on SUWA? :crazycobasa: When has SUWA asked for paved roads, brick shit houses, entrance fees, visitors centers, rangers, permits, quotas, etc. etc. etc?

Looks like my joke about paving hole in the rock was spot on.

oldno7

12-05-2017, 09:29 AM

Congressman Stewart just announced the proposed Escalante Canyons National Park.

I hope the SUWA crowd is satisfied now.

You don't bilk people out of millions of dollars by them being satisfied.

hank moon

12-05-2017, 10:17 AM

....

Sombeech

12-05-2017, 10:43 AM

I've sure heard some crazy speculation and nightmare scenarios of what's going to happen to the land now.

Photos of Wahweap Hoodoos, spreading fear and lies that these lands are in danger; I'm just waiting to see some more of those protest signs where the bulldozer is pushing over Delicate Arch. Those are awesome.

rockgremlin

12-05-2017, 11:40 AM

is that why there is a 2015 San Juan Energy Plan that overlaps BENM?

stefan -- Regardless of San Juan County's energy plan, there is very little evidence to prove that exploitable, marketable oil resources exist within the BENM boundaries. The value of possible resources that may result from additional prospecting and exploration is unknown and speculative at best.

Exploratory gas fields mean just that -- exploratory. Meaning that nobody is currently drilling it, neither is anybody planning to drill it in the near future. There has been some interest in the past, but most companies know there isn't enough in the ground there to warrant a full on drilling program. If the BENM was such a hotbed for oil and mineral development, then mining companies would already be in there mining a long time ago.

Just to re-iterate, here's an article from the Deseret News that basically echoes my original claim:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865693641/Gary-Herbert-5-myths-about-Bears-Ears.html

"Myth: Without national monument status, the Bears Ears region will be crisscrossed by coal mines, oil rigs and gas pipelines.

Fact: Mineral resources beneath Bears Ears are scarce. There is no developable oil and gas. The region’s nonrenewable resources, including uranium near the Daneros Mine, were actually outside the expansive monument boundaries (https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnr-newsfeed/very-little-energy-potential-within-bears-ears-national-monument) declared by Obama. The integrity of the Bears Ears landscape, long kept intact before the creation of the monument, will almost certainly remain intact after Trump’s announcement. And to ensure this going forward, the state of Utah is asking for congressional legislation that will exclude the region from mineral extraction."

Sandstone Addiction

12-05-2017, 06:40 PM

@stefan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=271) -- Regardless of San Juan County's energy plan, there is very little evidence to prove that exploitable, marketable oil resources exist within the BENM boundaries. The value of possible resources that may result from additional prospecting and exploration is unknown and speculative at best.

Exploratory gas fields mean just that -- exploratory. Meaning that nobody is currently drilling it, neither is anybody planning to drill it in the near future. There has been some interest in the past, but most companies know there isn't enough in the ground there to warrant a full on drilling program. If the BENM was such a hotbed for oil and mineral development, then mining companies would already be in there mining a long time ago.

Just to re-iterate, here's an article from the Deseret News that basically echoes my original claim:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865693641/Gary-Herbert-5-myths-about-Bears-Ears.html

"Myth: Without national monument status, the Bears Ears region will be crisscrossed by coal mines, oil rigs and gas pipelines.

Fact: Mineral resources beneath Bears Ears are scarce. There is no developable oil and gas. The region’s nonrenewable resources, including uranium near the Daneros Mine, were actually outside the expansive monument boundaries (https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnr-newsfeed/very-little-energy-potential-within-bears-ears-national-monument) declared by Obama. The integrity of the Bears Ears landscape, long kept intact before the creation of the monument, will almost certainly remain intact after Trump’s announcement. And to ensure this going forward, the state of Utah is asking for congressional legislation that will exclude the region from mineral extraction."

That's a great article. I'm sure that no one fighting for the massive land grab (I call it the way I see it) will admit the truth in any of the "facts".

Concerning the massive coal deposit in the GSENM. When I was a wee lad my dad showed me where the opening of the mine was going to be and we all waited in anticipation of the mine opening along with the massive coal fired power plant on Nipple Bench. Neither one ever came to be. Robert Redford and the Sierra Club shut them both down. If it didn't happen then, it sure as hell wouldn't happen now, or in the future.

Me as a wee lad overlooking Wahweap and the fish hatchery when it was first constructed...I'm on the right.

88507

Brian in SLC

12-05-2017, 09:06 PM

Interesting comment from a feller I know who lives down that way...

"This is a classic tactic -- you totally under-resource an agency and then fault them for being ineffective and incompetent. If you want to deconstruct the administrative state, then defund them and blame them. The Bears Ears region has been one of the most undervalued (as measured by federal appropriations) areas of public land in the country esp considering the world class cultural resources and recreation found there. The monument brought hope of better management and adequate resources. We do (on-going tax legislation notwithstanding) have enough $ to take care of our federal lands, it's just that Congress refuses to provide it for political and tactical reasons."

Interesting game of chess...

Sombeech

12-06-2017, 10:42 AM

rockgremlin

12-06-2017, 02:36 PM

So there must be some great oil reserves out there, right? That's what I keep hearing, the oil rigs will start driving into town. I had no idea you could just dig a hole anywhere and oil would come up. Might as well do it in a scenic part of the state though

The Aneth oil fields just south of BENM are very rich. But they are far away from the proposed monument, and much of it is on the Navajo Nation lands.

What I find interesting is that if people were so concerned about not drilling oil on Bears Ears, why did nobody speak up about it before? Why is it that all of a sudden when BENM becomes such a hot button politicized topic THEN people want to cry foul? And most of the time the folks who scream the loudest are one's that are the least informed.

Sombeech

12-06-2017, 06:50 PM

Gotta get all that oilhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171207/dfe641c23787fc03d4066ddaa7c728ce.jpg

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Scott P

12-06-2017, 07:11 PM

So there must be some great oil reserves out there, right? That's what I keep hearing, the oil rigs will start driving into town. I had no idea you could just dig a hole anywhere and oil would come up. Might as well do it in a scenic part of the state though

That's not how it usually works. Seldom is there large scale destruction of the wild-lands. Although there are exceptions, usually it is a slow encroachment of the wild-lands and they slowly disappear over time. It's usually a mineral extraction exploratory road here or there, or a new track, or extended track every once in a while rather than all of the sudden a giant strip mine.

Right now oil prices are too low for most companies to want to drill in such areas (even though oil does exist in that area), so the threat isn't immediate but that could change. The threat is still real as a lot of us have seen the slow encroachment of former wild-lands. I can think of many examples.

One possible compromise is slant drilling technology. Using such technology, you can actually drill under monuments and wilderness areas without disturbing the land within those areas. This seems the way to go and is a win-win situation. The disadvantage is that it is more expensive, but to me it would be worth it. We could still get the oil under the wild-lands, but leave the wild areas intact. Paying a little more for the oil would be a small price to pay in my opinion.

What I find interesting is that if people were so concerned about not drilling oil on Bears Ears, why did nobody speak up about it before?

Plenty of people have spoken up about it in recent years:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2258169&itype=CMSID

rockgremlin

12-06-2017, 07:54 PM

^^^ Scott - Although there is nothing in that article in regards to BENM, I can see there has been concern for preserving that part of the state...and deservedly so. I've spent a considerable part of my life in the Mesa and the Swell, and I too would prefer to see it left alone.

My take is that the threat of mineral and/or oil extraction in those areas is extremely low. I keep a finger on the pulse of mining in Utah at all times, and I'm unaware of any impending mining activity anywhere near these sensitive areas. That said, you can understand why I bristle when the industry that puts food in my kid's mouths is continually vilified for no other reason than to generate fear and panic in the otherwise ignorant masses.

twotimer

12-06-2017, 09:02 PM

Although I'm a wilderness loving, get away from it all backpacking kinda dude, I fall into the camp that isn't particularly worried about all those areas around the Blue's getting jacked up. I'd say if they turn it into a National Park or build up the infrastructure with more campgrounds and signs all over the place...then you can kiss what it has been goodbye.

I must say though, that I'm certainly glad that it's mostly public land (federal or state matters not to me) because when I journeyed down to the Big Bend area of Texas in January I was dismayed that aside from the National Park and the adjacent State Park there is NO public land down there at all.

All that beautiful, lonely desert outside the parks and you couldn't drive down any dirt road and throw down a sleeping bag.

If the Feds or the State started selling off chunks of it, then you've got a REAL problem...IMO.

Iceaxe

12-06-2017, 09:10 PM

^^^THIS^^^

I've spent the past 40 years in mining and energy and I can tell you there are no mines or drilling rigs heading for Bears Ears or Escalante.

People need to understand their is a lot more money to be made by creating controversy over wilderness then there is to be pumped or dug out of Bears Ears.

Sombeech

12-06-2017, 09:50 PM

For those still trying to exaggerate the "traces" of oil and coal in the area, doing all they can to bump it up to medium and partial amounts, trying to tell us all this is enough for corporations to take a blind chance to go strip the land... I was reminded of a good quote today;

There's plenty of spare change that has fallen into the sewer but it's not worth sifting through.

The initial emotional outcry in opposition to Trump was effective, but as time goes by, more facts emerge and it's getting more funny by the hour.

Scott P

12-06-2017, 10:10 PM

I must say though, that I'm certainly glad that it's mostly public land (federal or state matters not to me) because when I journeyed down to the Big Bend area of Texas in January I was dismayed that aside from the National Park and the adjacent State Park there is NO public land down there at all.

Other than the two national parks, basically the entire state of Texas is like that (there are small areas such as Padre Island or Big Thicket that are public land too). It's no wonder you see so many Texans out on the trail in places like Colorado and New Mexico.

To give credit to an oil companies and oil men where credit is due, much of the land for Guadalupe Mountains National Park was donated by the Pratt's from the Humble Oil and Refining Company. Much of Grand Teton National Park was bought and donated by Rockefeller of Standard Oil.

Sombeech

12-07-2017, 10:33 AM

Much of Grand Teton National Park was bought and donated by Rockefeller of Standard Oil.

I know nothing of this topic but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it was because there wasn't any oil in those lands worth extracting.

Just like Bears Ears.

rockgremlin

12-07-2017, 11:08 AM

I know nothing of this topic but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it was because there wasn't any oil in those lands worth extracting.

Just like Bears Ears.

Might be some truth to this, for sure.

Hey Scott -- off the top of your head, do you happen to recall what year Rockefeller made this donation?

accadacca

12-07-2017, 11:31 AM

Billionaire Owner of Outdoor Apparel Brand Patagonia Plans To Sue Trump

“The President Stole Your Land. In an illegal move, the president just reduced the size of Bear Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. This is the largest elimination of protected land in American history.” So reads the now black frontpage of outdoor gear and apparel company Patagonia.

It’s a strong message delivered by a passionate billionaire who built his company and made his fortune his own way, largely by consistently touting a message of environmental conservation.

Patagonia’s owner, Yvon Chouinard, has made clear his opposition to President Trump’s decision to sharply reduce the sizes of two federally protected monuments in Utah by some two million acres.

In addition to changing his company’s homepage, Chouinard told CNN on Tuesday morning that he plans to take the White House to court. ”I’m going to sue him,” Chouinard said. “It seems the only thing this administration understands is lawsuits.”

Patagonia’s general counsel, Hilary Dessouky, provided the following statement to Forbes, citing plans to file a lawsuit on Wednesday, December 6:

The Administration’s unlawful actions betray our shared responsibility to protect iconic places for future generations and represent the largest elimination of protected land in American history. We worked to establish Bears Ears National Monument and will now fight to protect it. On Wednesday, we will be filing a lawsuit challenging the president’s revocation of Bears Ears National Monument.

According to Corley Kenna, spokeswoman for Patagonia, they have been expecting an order of this nature. “We’ve known since the beginning of the year that something like this might happen,” she said. “So we’ve been preparing.”

At least one lawsuit has already been filed against President Trump for the proclamations. A consortium of 10 environmental organizations including The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club and Grand Canyon Trust jointly filed a suit on December 4 — the same day the orders were announced — alleging the proclamations as “unlawful” and that the President “exceeds his authority under the Antiquities Act” by reducing the federal lands in Utah.

The administration’s decision to withdraw support of those Utah lands would dramatically reduce the sizes of Bears Ears National Monument by 85% and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by about 46%. These two sites, both of which were designated as monuments under Democratic presidents, are being abandoned due to what the Trump administration calls “a lack of significance.”

“Some of the objects … are not unique to the monument, and some of the particular examples of these objects within the monument are not significant scientific or historic interest,” reads the administration’s order, known as the “Presidential Proclamation Modifying the Bears Ears National Monument.” A similarly-titled “Presidential Proclamation” was also released for Grand Staircase-Escalante.

President Trump further explained his decision during remarks at the Utah State Capitol on December 4, citing “harmful and unnecessary restrictions on hunting, ranching and responsible economic development” as the reasons for this proclamation.

Bear Ears became a monument under the Obama administration during the last few days of his presidency in December 2016, while Grand Staircase-Escalante received the same status in September 1996 when Clinton was president.

Other outdoor retailers including REI and North Face also adjusted their homepages to show their opposition to the administration’s proclamation. North Face’s homepage includes a link to a Kickstarter page to raise $100,000 for the Bear Ears Education Center. At the time of publication, the Kickstarter page had already crossed the $100,000 line.

Chouinard appeared on Forbes’ list of the World’s Billionaires for the first time in March 2017 with a personal net worth of $1 billion. “We strongly oppose being included on this list,” a spokeswoman of Patagonia told Forbes at the time.

He founded Patagonia as a climbing equipment startup with the main goal of financing his mountain adventures. The company, which almost went bankrupt in the 1970s, is known for adopting sustainable practices including using recycled plastic bottles as fabric. The company has also been fighting to protect public lands for years and says it helped establish several monuments, including Bears Ears. In 2015, the company’s sales reached $750 million.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of the story incorrectly stated that Yvon Chouinard appeared on Forbes‘ list of the World’s Billionaires for the first time last year. He was a newcomer to the 2017 World’s Billionaires list which was published in March 2017.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2017/12/05/billionaire-owner-of-outdoor-apparel-brand-patagonia-plans-to-sue-trump-yvon-chouinard/

Sombeech

12-07-2017, 11:33 AM

Billionaire Owner of Outdoor Apparel Brand Patagonia Plans To Sue Trump

“The President Stole Your Land

Yeah I've wanted to just raise my hand and offer a correction, rather than "Stole", it should be "Gave Back". It's an easy mistake to make.

Sombeech

12-07-2017, 11:41 AM

Billionaire Owner of Outdoor Apparel Brand Patagonia Plans To Sue Trump

I sure hope he spends a ton of money. In fact it would be hilarious to watch somebody so obsessed in opposition to keep spending their fortune in vain, fighting something backed by the law, in angry frustration so much they drop their net worth from Billions to Millions.

I hope this happens. So does Trump. What a mismatch.

Iceaxe

12-07-2017, 11:50 AM

Lawyers getting rich from controversy... who would have guessed.

One huge difference between Chouinard and Trump fighting this out in court is Trump is playing with unlimited house money.

On a side note how is that Gorsuch pick for SCOTUS looking now?

accadacca

12-07-2017, 11:55 AM

It's simply a PR stunt for Chouinard and Patigonia

Brian in SLC

12-07-2017, 12:17 PM

It's simply a PR stunt for Chouinard and Patigonia

Hardly a stunt.

stefan

12-07-2017, 12:23 PM

The Aneth oil fields just south of BENM are very rich. But they are far away from the proposed monument, and much of it is on the Navajo Nation lands.

What I find interesting is that if people were so concerned about not drilling oil on Bears Ears, why did nobody speak up about it before? Why is it that all of a sudden when BENM becomes such a hot button politicized topic THEN people want to cry foul? And most of the time the folks who scream the loudest are one's that are the least informed.

bears ears/BENM is a relatively new catchall for lands in this region that have long been part of ARRWA. one of the primary motives of ARRWA is to protect regions from energy development, and in the region spanning from the moab vicinity to needles there has long been a concern regarding energy development.

stefan

12-07-2017, 12:33 PM

That the other 18 times were never challenged in court doesn't favor environmentalist as US laws often supports precedents.

That the monuments being discussed are massive in size also doesn't bode well for the Antiquities Act as the act itself limits the monument "to the smallest area compatible".

Environmentalist need to be careful with this case as it could just as easily end with the death of the Antiquities Act as we know it. No matter which side of the argument you fall on you have to agree the Antiquities Act is a massive amount of power for one person to wield without any procedural requirements and without any checks and balances.

after clinton's declaration of GSENM, the US Congress adjusted its boundaries and the current monument's boundaries were ratified by congress at that time. it doesn't appear the president is granted powers under the antiquities act to adjust congressionally set boundaries. so we will have to see where this goes.

Sombeech

12-07-2017, 01:00 PM

Too many people are clinging on to this fear that these unique land formations are going to be destroyed soon. Literally. They post pictures of some slots from the area, or the Wahweap Hoodoos and say they are afraid of what will happen to them now.

Prime for trolling, I'd say.

I'm going to post some pictures of my kids saying I fear for their generation, not able to visit these lands because they will be destroyed, and their lungs will be filled with the black coal dust.

Does anybody have any pictures of minorities, or children, (or minority children for the win!) with tape over their mouths that I can use in protest? I'd use photos with them wearing dust masks, but the masks hide the tape they've got over their mouth so you don't even know.

And I'll crop in a bulldozer pushing against one of the Hoodoos. Holy shit Trump is going to back off after seeing this.

stefan

12-07-2017, 01:07 PM

@stefan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=271) -- Regardless of San Juan County's energy plan, there is very little evidence to prove that exploitable, marketable oil resources exist within the BENM boundaries. The value of possible resources that may result from additional prospecting and exploration is unknown and speculative at best.

Exploratory gas fields mean just that -- exploratory. Meaning that nobody is currently drilling it, neither is anybody planning to drill it in the near future. There has been some interest in the past, but most companies know there isn't enough in the ground there to warrant a full on drilling program. If the BENM was such a hotbed for oil and mineral development, then mining companies would already be in there mining a long time ago.

thanks, i appreciate your comments, rock. my interest is in the long term so we can watch for next 1-40 years. also full-on drilling versus exploration either way impacts the land, ymmv.

here are the current leases up for sale in the march 2018 blm oil and gas lease sale:

lease list
https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/82261/126397/153994/2March2018ParcelList.pdf

here is the blm's map of the leases in hatch point (014-019) in the immediate vicinity of the northeastern border of BENM and obvious other areas. these leases are largely in areas in ARRWA (see second map below). parcel 014 is right at the border of BENM and parcel 016 is ~1mi from the hatch point campground. i've uploaded as a jpeg but the pdf can be accessed at ( https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/88117/120771/147486/Map_4.pdf )

88510

below is a map that shows the parcels 014-019 in hatch point in the map above relative to the borders of BENM, lands contained in ARRWA, and proximity to well known features in the vicinity. parcel 014 is right up against the boundary and most of the parcels are in ARRWA lands (see also parcels 010, 012, & 023).

88511

Iceaxe

12-07-2017, 03:02 PM

after clinton's declaration of GSENM, the US Congress adjusted its boundaries and the current monument's boundaries were ratified by congress at that time. it doesn't appear the president is granted powers under the antiquities act to adjust congressionally set boundaries. so we will have to see where this goes.

Congress tossed something very interesting into the adjustment of the GSENM boundary

"Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed as constituting congressional approval, explicit or implicit, of the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Expresses the intent of the Congress that the Monument be abolished if any court finds that the President exceeded the President's authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 in establishing the national monument."

More here.... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/105/hr3909/summary

I also know some members of congress are currently working to have Trumps new Bears Ears adjustment approved by congress, which would actually remove this item from lawsuits as I believe everyone agrees that Congress has the power to adjust boundaries, create and eliminate Monuments and National Parks.

middlefork

12-07-2017, 03:40 PM

Yeah I've wanted to just raise my hand and offer a correction, rather than "Stole", it should be "Gave Back". It's an easy mistake to make.

As I understand it the Federal Government already owned the land (with small exceptions) so how exactly did they steal it and then give it back to themselves?

So far the only thing that has happened is drawing and re-drawing lines on a piece of paper and typing up a couple of proclamations. For this the lawyers will get rich, the land will get plundered by all those who have to see what the hullabaloo is all about.

Oh yea now we want another national park. That makes a lot of sense. Can't afford the ones we have now.

It's all a little magic show. Don't watch what the other hand is doing.

DirkHammergate

12-07-2017, 06:23 PM

I sure hope he spends a ton of money. In fact it would be hilarious to watch somebody so obsessed in opposition to keep spending their fortune in vain, fighting something backed by the law, in angry frustration so much they drop their net worth from Billions to Millions.

I hope this happens. So does Trump. What a mismatch.

I once thought this was a forum to celebrate the outdoor, open land.... Now everyone is rock hard to #fakenews everything.

Echo Chamber, Echo Chamber, Echo Chamber. It's an Echo Chamber in here.

You should rename the site "Trumpley" and let others handle the Trip Reports.

I will be remiss if I didn't quote America's "Finest"

God Bless the United Shessts...

Udink

12-07-2017, 06:25 PM

either way impacts the land, ymmv.
Did you just iceaxe (the verb, not the noun)? :lol8:

Brian in SLC

12-07-2017, 06:52 PM

As I understand it the Federal Government already owned the land (with small exceptions) so how exactly did they steal it and then give it back to themselves?

So far the only thing that has happened is drawing and re-drawing lines on a piece of paper and typing up a couple of proclamations. For this the lawyers will get rich, the land will get plundered by all those who have to see what the hullabaloo is all about.

The removal of the protective status afforded by monument status was akin to stealing. Not really a stretch.

"The largest elimination of protected land in American history."

If you read each executive order, and make even a feeble attempt to understand the differences and issues, you might gain a small understanding.

Or not.

And...concur about the lawyers. The legal knives are gettin' sharpened.

It is weird, though. Even folks opposed to the monument have stated that there's not much in the way of mining or oil/gas. Coal in the GSENM for sure. And, some oil/gas possibility around (north) of Indian Creek...I seem to have noted.

So...was it really done for spite and political favor? Seems silly if that's the case.

The locals are xenophobic methinks and many won't embrace the industry of tourism. They got nothing else. Grazing cattle? Eeek. That just can't be profitable. Who'd eat beef raised in that country? And the carrot of high paying extraction jobs just isn't real.

Big difference between the Escalante area pre and 20 years post monument. Quality of life just seems and looks better. What else they got besides tourism? Blaming the greenies on the sawmill closing (log didn't even come from the "monument".)? Nutty.

4.6 million in Zion this year. Gotta spread that money around...ha ha.

Iceaxe

12-07-2017, 07:47 PM

This is comical... The environmentalist feel the land was 'stolen' from them when Trump signed his executive orders.

But....

How is it they fail to understand the other half feel the land was 'stolen' from them when Obama and Clinton signed their EO?

Who stole the land just depends on which side of the door you're on.

Was the monument created out of spite or political favor?

Was the monument altered out of spite or political favor?

Again.... same deal, just a different door.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171208/49f24851185c6aa70fe925c346f293c6.jpg

twotimer

12-07-2017, 08:47 PM

Echo Chamber, Echo Chamber, Echo Chamber. It's an Echo Chamber in here.

You should rename the site "Trumpley" and let others handle the Trip Reports.

There used to be a lot more liberals around here, but they're generally thinned skinned and got tired of getting their asses kicked...so they left.

Sombeech

12-08-2017, 07:16 AM

I once thought this was a forum to celebrate the outdoor.

Yes, because everybody who wants Utah to have better control of it's Federal Lands, hates the outdoors, right?

Err, no, racist! Wait now I'm losing track.

This OUTDOOR COMMUNITY is definitely a strange place to discuss Escalante and Bears Ears, I agree

Sombeech

12-08-2017, 07:19 AM

I'll give 100 internet points to whomever can answer this question;

Who did Trump steal the land from?

Sombeech

12-08-2017, 09:21 AM

Hardly a stunt.

It's genius actually. I've seen so many people donating money, not just the 1 percenters, but people I know, friends, colleagues donating money to the cause.

Then, these 1 percenter CEOs (oh they're the good kind of 1 percenter billionaires) will take this money and throw it away on a lawsuit, and the lawyers (no doubtedly 1 percenters too) will get even more money.

Interesting, the only people losing money on this deal are the middle class people. That's weird.

Scott P

12-08-2017, 11:22 AM

There used to be a lot more liberals around here, but they're generally thinned skinned and got tired of getting their asses kicked...so they left.

Or they just got tired of the site. Besides, "liberal" is just a term people throw around here for anyone that doesnt agree 100% with a conservative agenda or Donald Trump. I myself am an independent, though I certainly do tend to side with the liberals on outdoor issues.

As for me I'd go for Donald Trump in charge of the checkbook, a John Muir equivalent in charge of the outdoors and the environment, and Rand Paul in charge of foreign policy. Maybe someone like Eisenhower for infrastructure? The rest can be sorted out.

Scott P

12-08-2017, 11:43 AM

Who stole the land just depends on which side of the door you're on.

True. Personally, I'd like to see the issue put on a ballot.

Anyway, although I usually support land protections, I can't say I was really a strong supporter of Bears Ears at this time. My concern is that an unfunded monument (and the chances of this monument being funded under the current administration are slim) isn't much better than no monument.

To me it's sad that many people don't see the value in windlands or preservation. There are exceptions, but usually once those areas are lost, they don't come back.

Iceaxe

12-08-2017, 11:55 AM

True. Personally, I'd like to see the issue put on a ballot.

Basically already been done, that's why we elect our representatives. Bears Ears and GSENM is a topic Congress could easily and quickly sort out if they were so inclined.

Maybe we just need new representatives.

Brian in SLC

12-08-2017, 11:56 AM

It's genius actually. I've seen so many people donating money, not just the 1 percenters, but people I know, friends, colleagues donating money to the cause.

Then, these 1 percenter CEOs (oh they're the good kind of 1 percenter billionaires) will take this money and throw it away on a lawsuit, and the lawyers (no doubtedly 1 percenters too) will get even more money.

Interesting, the only people losing money on this deal are the middle class people. That's weird.

Maybe they care. Its not a loss of money, its an investment in the future. A future that would benefit even you.

You gotta helluva lot more in common with Yvon than you do with the Donald. Which is why its hard to understand you're stickin' a fork in this stuff. Do you not care what happens to this public land? Do you not care for how its managed? Or, do you choose to be blissfully ignorant?

Geez...most of us here are pretty outdoorsly. I can't get my head around why we're not on the same page when it comes to public land.

Yvon's one of the good guys. You're more than likely to run into him outdoors that just about anyone slappin' Trump on the back at the photo op in Utah the other day. I've run into him. Nice guy. Pretty easy to talk to. Gives a shit about our public land.

A friend ran into Zinke up in Whitefish earlier this year. They did not have a good chat.

Iceaxe

12-08-2017, 11:59 AM

Who did Trump steal the land from?

After reading the above post I notice Brian in SLC has his hand raised.

Scott P

12-08-2017, 12:01 PM

Basically already been done, that's why we elect our representatives. Bears Ears and GSENM is a topic Congress could easily and quickly sort out if they were so inclined.

Maybe we just need new representatives.

I'd still like a chance to vote more on issues than mostly just for politicians, and this goes for not just the monument.

Brian in SLC

12-08-2017, 12:41 PM

After reading the above post I notice Brian in SLC has his hand raised.

Stole it from all of us, holmes.

(Sorry, that photo of you guys headin' to lava is makin' me chuckle...I notice you don't have your hand raised...ha ha).

I still wonder if this is a ploy to ultimately transfer ownership of this land to the state.

The SITLA land swap from GSENM was a win for the state. Did that land get stole back to the feds?

The pending brokered land swap from Bears Ears would have been a good deal too. Shame.

Makes me think of the Right Fork of Indian Canyon....recall running into a locked gate there awhile back...right at one of new pads.

Monument status was a good deal if you like outdoor recreation...to include hunting, fishing, and hiking.

rockgremlin

12-08-2017, 01:30 PM

It is weird, though. Even folks opposed to the monument have stated that there's not much in the way of mining or oil/gas. Coal in the GSENM for sure. And, some oil/gas possibility around (north) of Indian Creek...I seem to have noted.

So...was it really done for spite and political favor? Seems silly if that's the case.

The locals are xenophobic methinks and many won't embrace the industry of tourism. They got nothing else. Grazing cattle? Eeek. That just can't be profitable. Who'd eat beef raised in that country? And the carrot of high paying extraction jobs just isn't real.

I couldn't agree more, Brian. It's a question that's been rolling around in my head ever since Trump signed the papers. If not for the benefit of mineral extraction, then what was the underlying motive?

Was it just done in spite to undo what Obama did? Seems silly and pointless.

Makes me wonder how many political decisions are made for no other reason than to satisfy someone's ego.

Sombeech

12-08-2017, 01:35 PM

Do you not care what happens to this public land? Do you not care for how its managed?

See, this is the primary issue, people think that if it's not managed 1 certain way by a very specific group in Washington, then it is going to burn in a fire and erode to ashes and dust.

The rest of us are more open minded, no offense, that there are better ways, better people to manage these lands, people who are more emotionally invested in it.

rockgremlin

12-08-2017, 01:53 PM

Do you not care what happens to public land?

Of course he doesn't care. He hates the outdoors...member? :haha:

Brian in SLC

12-08-2017, 03:05 PM

See, this is the primary issue, people think that if it's not managed 1 certain way by a very specific group in Washington, then it is going to burn in a fire and erode to ashes and dust.

The rest of us are more open minded, no offense, that there are better ways, better people to manage these lands, people who are more emotionally invested in it.

No offense taken and I appreciate the dialog.

Having known an number of Forest Service and BLM employees (and NPS too) over the years, all local to the areas they worked...and, all very emotionally invested in the land they managed, I'd disagree.

But...let's explore this. Do you know a local land manager, say, at the state or county level as an example? What could you show as evidence of this "better way"?

You recreate in the winter? Call the avy forecast center? You think a non-federal employee could do a better job? You don't think these folks are emotionally invested? That's just one very local and pertinent example. And timely. You got anyone in mind that could do a better job? I'm all ears.

Some of us are very involved with local land managers. Couple weeks ago a bunch of us met in Cottonwood Heights at a home with representatives from the Forest Service and UDOT to discuss transportation and parking issues in Little Cottonwood for example. This was a Q and A and discussion of issues and possible solutions type session. Forest Service was there on their own time, till after 9pm on a school night. Ditto the UDOT folks. You got someone in mind who you think could help, I'm all ears.

Would really like to hear who these better folk are you have in mind. Appreciate a fresh perspective. If you have contact info, or, you yourself would like to get involved, I'll make sure you're invited to the next policy or public land session that I know about. I think there's one scheduled next week and another in January.

middlefork

12-08-2017, 04:12 PM

So how much money was appropriated to establish and maintain the original BENM.

How much boots on the ground enforcement of any rules over and above the ones already in place before the monument was established was there before the area was reduced? And how much is taking place right now?

Not much I think.

If there is no money it doesn't matter what some piece of paper says about management. My guess it will be a very cold day before funding appears for either proposal.

rockgremlin

12-08-2017, 05:31 PM

Brian in SLC - What are these policy sessions about, and why are they held? And by whom?

I'm interested...

Brian in SLC

12-08-2017, 06:11 PM

There's a public meeting next week, 11 and 12 December, in Monticello. This would be a fun one...!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/30/2017-25835/notice-of-public-meeting-for-the-utah-resource-advisory-council

The SLCA is trying to finalize a date and venue (someone who's willing to host...) for their next policy meeting. Rumor has January.

I think the EIS bid has (or is going) out for Little Cottonwood. The money attached to this is pretty significant:

http://www.sltrib.com/pb/news/politics/2017/09/15/little-cottonwood-canyon-tops-list-for-slice-of-100-million-pot-of-road-money/comments/

Rumor has the EIS alone is 2 million bucks. Hope they're spending our tax money wisely....(ha ha).

Should be a scoping meeting coming up on the heels of this. I heard in January.

Scott P

12-08-2017, 06:54 PM

See, this is the primary issue, people think that if it's not managed 1 certain way by a very specific group in Washington, then it is going to burn in a fire and erode to ashes and dust.

I don't know anyone who has said or thought this.

The rest of us are more open minded, no offense, that there are better ways, better people to manage these lands, people who are more emotionally invested in it.

Who? I do agree with you though, but I was wondering who you had in mind. The state and counties in the area in question certainly haven't been making much of an effort to protect these lands. It seems that most of them just view the land with dollar signs or in some areas to test out their toys.

Do you know who is the biggest private land owner in San Juan County? It's the Nature Conservancy. They have done a good job of protecting the land and even preserving ranches.

If the state and counties made more effort to protect the land, I really don't think people would be pushing for these monuments. You can tell just by driving through some of these places whether or not many people care about the land.

Obviously, a Monument isn't the only use for land and development, oil exploration, motorized travel, etc., are also important.

The thing is though that the areas in the monument or former monument have seen a lot of abuse over the years (though the majority of it still remains in good condition). This land belongs to all Americans, not just the Feds. Those who have been going to such areas for a long time have seen the change for the worse happen over time. Entire ruins that I visited a few decades ago have disappeared (I assume because of cattle?), and of course grave robbing has been a chronic problem. It's not as you say, the whole land turns to ashes; it is piecemeal.

One thing I will say though is that if people hate the land being federal public land, then why live there? It's like those people that move to Provo and complain that there are too many Mormons. Those who don't like Federal land can move east of the Rockies. There is very little Federal land in the country east of the Rockies. People out west don't know how lucky they are.

Anyway, although there has been a lot of bad news when it comes to natural areas, there is good news in some areas including non-federal lands. When I was a kid, places like Corner Canyon or Butterflied Canyon around the Salt Lake Valley were kind of dumps. They are much better now. It's too bad that more of the rural communities in certain areas don't take more of an active role in such things, rather than just fight against anything that protects wild lands or natural areas. Some rural communities do take a part, while others do not. Often you can tell which ones do just by driving through of visiting.

PS, you don't hate the outdoors. You just don't love it as much as some of us do.:wink:

DirkHammergate

12-08-2017, 08:06 PM

There used to be a lot more liberals around here, but they're generally thinned skinned and got tired of getting their asses kicked...so they left.

I'm going to side with Scott P here, people can call me whatever people want, I couldn't give a f*ck. I've got the thickest skin of all time, I hate liberals in general. I hate Ideologue conservatives. I do generally try to see the point of what people I don't agree with.

What I will do call a spade a spade.... This forum has turned into a drag, #notfakenews

God Bless The United Sheets.

One last thing...

I'd bet the house on this. If Roy Moore (R) was to run against resurrected the Jesus Christ who ran as a (D) and was known to be the Son of God. In Alabama Roy Moore would win. I think it'd be the same thing here in Utah if Jesus (D) ran against Hatch or Lee. I have a lot of equity in my house too.

Iceaxe

12-08-2017, 08:20 PM

I'd bet the house on this. If Roy Moore (R) was to run against resurrected the Jesus Christ who ran as a (D) and was known to be the Son of God. In Alabama Roy Moore would win. I think it'd be the same thing here in Utah if Jesus (D) ran against Hatch or Lee. I have a lot of equity in my house too.

I totally agree.... and I can also guarantee that if Trump cured cancer tomorrow the headlines would read... Trump puts doctors out of business...

Or even better if Trump walked across the Potomac River and cured cancer the headlines would read Trump doesn't know how to swim....

So what's your point?

DirkHammergate

12-08-2017, 08:42 PM

I totally agree.... and I can also guarantee that if Trump cured cancer tomorrow the headlines would read... Trump puts doctors out of business...

Or even better if Trump walked across the Potomac River and cured cancer the headlines would read Trump doesn't know how to swim....

So what's your point?

Oh queue the presser tomorrow.... "No one has been better at Curing Cancer than me. I just did, it's a fact I just did.. I'm just the best at curing cancer. Yesterday, I walked on water, didn't get wet.... Jesus got wet when he tried to walk on water, I didn't get wet."

DirkHammergate

12-08-2017, 08:48 PM

So what's your point?

Basically to make you seem small and totally backward.

twotimer

12-09-2017, 05:50 AM

I'd bet the house on this. If Roy Moore (R) was to run against resurrected the Jesus Christ who ran as a (D) and was known to be the Son of God. In Alabama Roy Moore would win. I think it'd be the same thing here in Utah if Jesus (D) ran against Hatch or Lee. .Nah man, you've got it totally backwards...it's the liberals that would crucify his ass all over again. Especially the Jewish hierarchy that hate Israel.

Jesus would be a Republican.

DirkHammergate

12-09-2017, 08:18 AM

Nah man, you've got it totally backwards...it's the liberals that would crucify his ass all over again. Especially the Jewish hierarchy that hate Israel.

Jesus would be a Republican.

I'm just going to let you keep talking here. It's like you have autism. Keep it going, come along pig. I can wait for my biblical citations of Jesus quotes later.

twotimer

12-09-2017, 05:51 PM

I'm just going to let you keep talking here. It's like you have autism. Keep it going, come along pig.Oh my...not very friendly now, are ya? It appears my thinned skinned assessment is spot on. Perhaps try to lighten up there a little, Mr. Dirk. Being an easy going asshole is much better than an uptight one.

windminstrel

12-09-2017, 08:41 PM

I'm just going to let you keep talking here. It's like you have autism. Keep it going, come along pig. I can wait for my biblical citations of Jesus quotes later.

http://thenewbanalistsorchestra.bandcamp.com/album/mammon

rockgremlin

12-09-2017, 08:46 PM

Brian in SLC - ho boy that public meeting in Monticello ought to be interesting. Wish I still lived there.

Sombeech

12-09-2017, 11:42 PM

Some of my favorite reading is when people that don't believe in Jesus Christ, pick and choose certain attributes they pretend he had or didn't have, and assign him to a political party or ideology. They'll go up to the Googler and type in their favorite search terms "reasons why Jesus would be a ___________ today" and they pretend they have any clue about Jesus' personality (right after they tell the rest of us it's either foolish or offensive to discuss him).

Yes, tell us why Jesus would have been a Liberal today, we've NEVER had the pleasure of hearing this.

Scott P

12-10-2017, 10:44 AM

One thing for sure is that when Jesus comes again, he's going to designate a bunch of monuments and wilderness areas and He won't take no for an answer!

https://thejazzyplayer.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/jesus_riding_a_velociraptor_by_capt_nemo-d3g2aa3.png?w=637

uintafly

12-11-2017, 10:04 AM

https://stewart.house.gov/sites/stewart.house.gov/files/Grand%20Staircase%20Escalante%20Enhancement%20Act. pdf

Here is a copy of the bill to make the new National Park. It looks like the plan is to have Kane and Garfield County Commissioners, the counties rep for the state legislature (currently Mike Noel), and a few other presidential appointees manage the park instead of the Park Superintendent. I have no idea if that is done at other parks, but it seems a little strange. It also calls for the transfer of HITRR to the state.

Has anyone seen a map of the proposed park? I am interested if places that are already somewhat crowded (Coyote, Neon, Spooky, etc.) would be in the park. I have to admit it's funny to think of hundreds of fat tourists stuffed in Peekaboo and Spooky gulches on Memorial Day weekend, but I don't see myself spending much time there. Also why does the state have such a hardon for HITTR?

Scott P

12-11-2017, 10:44 AM

Also why does the state have such a hardon for HITTR?

There are several reasons. The HITTR has always been contentious. Here are some of the reasons:

Right now, group size in limited to 12-25 (depending on which side/area of the road) as per Monument regulation. The state and counties don't want a limit on group sizes.

The state wants the HITTR paved to Harris or Twenty Five Mile Wash using Federal funds.

The first approximately 30% of the road is in Garfield County, while the rest of the road is in Kane County. Garfield County benefits from tourism on the road, but the majority of the road is in Kane County and since it dead ends Kane County businesses don't benefit even though Kane County is supposed to be in change of maintenance of the road. The county is given Federal money to maintain the road, but they seldom to on the Kane County side because they don't see a benefit.

Sombeech

12-11-2017, 12:54 PM

Before I form an opinion, I need to know who this National Park was stolen from

uintafly

12-11-2017, 01:38 PM

There are several reasons. The HITTR has always been contentious. Here are some of the reasons:

Right now, group size in limited to 12-25 (depending on which side/area of the road) as per Monument regulation. The state and counties don't want a limit on group sizes.

The state wants the HITTR paved to Harris or Twenty Five Mile Wash using Federal funds.

The first approximately 30% of the road is in Garfield County, while the rest of the road is in Kane County. Garfield County benefits from tourism on the road, but the majority of the road is in Kane County and since it dead ends Kane County businesses don't benefit even though Kane County is supposed to be in change of maintenance of the road. The county is given Federal money to maintain the road, but they seldom to on the Kane County side because they don't see a benefit.

Is there a big demand for huge groups out there or something and why do they want it paved? I see Kane Counties pov that they don't want to waste their funds on the road, but how does the state taking over change that? Would the state and not the county suddenly be on the hook for maintenance? I have kinda tuned out from the great road debates of years past.

Scott P

12-11-2017, 03:46 PM

Is there a big demand for huge groups out there or something and why do they want it paved?

I don't know if there is a big demand for big groups, but the state and counties certainly don't like the group number restrictions.

Many from the county and state have wanted the road paved for a long time. There are both pros and cons for this.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings on this. Pave roads are actually more environmentally friendly in many ways.

I see Kane Counties pov that they don't want to waste their funds on the road, but how does the state taking over change that?

Having the state take over the road means that they could change the group size restrictions and allow more development. See also below.

Would the state and not the county suddenly be on the hook for maintenance?

Yes and no, but working in highway engineering, I can say that many people misunderstand the difference between US Highways, State Highways, and County Roads.

A huge portion of State Highways and County Roads are still payed for with federal funds.

A State Highway, with few exceptions is within the border of a single state. A county road, with few exceptions, is in the border of a single county.

A State Highway or County Road doesn't mean that it's the State or County paying the bill to construct the road (though they pay some of it). I haven't worked directly for the state for several years, but I still do consulting work for them. Very few state road projects are done without Federal Funds. In 17 years, I have only been on one project that didn't (it was done with State Safety money). The roads will still be paid for with Federal funds. Generally Federal funds are given to the state and counties and they are given choices in which roads need more maintenance and construction projects.

In a National Park or Monument though, the Park or Monument gets a big say in the decision, which is what the state and many counties don't like.

That's why the pavement for the Burr Trail dead ends at or near the border of Capitol Reef National Park on either side and the road through the park is gravel. Capitol Reef National Park didn't allow that part to be paved, which was a big contention point with the counties and state. That's why the State wants some of those roads. I do see their point of view on this and have always thought there could be some kind of compromise on this.

Obviously, I like the parks and monuments, but don't see a huge a problem with giving the counties and states more involvement with the existing roads.

stefan

12-11-2017, 07:17 PM

OK, I've said this before numerous times, and I'm going to repeat myself again. These above quotes are founded on outright lies. Using scare tactics to sway an impressionable (and ignorant) audience. They persistently claim that mining companies are lining up to mine and drill and clear cut the Bears Ears when that is in fact a complete fallacy. There is no coal nor oil in the Bears Ears, and what little uranium there might be has been mined out years ago.

Nobody wants to mine nor drill there. Nobody. So please stop making those ridiculous claims.

hey rock, i read something a little different on uranium and a company's interest in it in the washington post this morning

EXCERPTED FROM:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/uranium-firm-urged-trump-officials-to-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument/2017/12/08/2eea39b6-dc31-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html

A uranium company launched a concerted lobbying campaign to scale back Bears Ears National Monument, saying such action would give it easier access to the area’s uranium deposits and help it operate a nearby processing mill, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

:

The documents show that Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., a subsidiary of a Canadian firm, urged the Trump administration to limit the monument to the smallest size needed to protect key objects and areas, such as archeological sites, to make it easier to access the radioactive ore.

In a May 25 letter to the Interior Department, Chief Operating Officer Mark Chalmers wrote that the 1.35 million-acre expanse Obama created “could affect existing and future mill operations.” He later noted, “There are also many other known uranium and vanadium deposits located within the [original boundaries] that could provide valuable energy and mineral resources in the future.”

Energy Fuels Resources did not just weigh in on national monuments through public-comment letters. It hired a team of lobbyists at Faegre Baker Daniels — led by Andrew Wheeler, who is awaiting Senate confirmation as the Environmental Protection Agency’s deputy secretary — to work on the matter and other federal policies affecting the company.

:

The company’s vice president of operations, William Paul Goranson, joined Wheeler and two other lobbyists, including former congresswoman Mary Bono (R-Calif.), to discuss Bears Ears in a July 17 meeting with two top Zinke advisers.

Goranson said Friday that the session with Downey Magallanes, who oversaw the monuments review and serves as Zinke’s deputy chief of staff for policy, and Vincent De Vito, his energy policy counselor, was focused on fairly narrow issues.

Company officials “were trying to get a sense of what was going on” with the review because some of their air and water quality monitoring stations and a road leading to the now-dormant Daneros mine all lay within the original monument, Goranson explained.

“The goal of the meeting . . . was not to go and advocate on the boundaries,” he said, adding that the lobbying for that was “on a separate track.” Still, the officials proposed small boundary adjustments to accommodate the monitoring stations as well as the mine, he acknowledged. And they emphasized that the company had cut its workforce by more than half since 2015 because of low uranium prices.

“They heard what we had to say about the job losses, etc.,” he said. Zinke’s deputies “were pretty positively disposed to” the idea of spurring future domestic uranium production.

The price of uranium has recently hovered between $20 and $25 per pound. To justify mining activity, it needs to approach $40 to $50. Michael Heim, a securities research analyst at Noble Capital Markets, said Friday that the current amount “is not a sustainable price” for firms such as Energy Fuels Resources. Given today’s price, Heim said, “the idea of creating more areas to mine wouldn’t have much impact.”

But Goranson said he and other company officials are “confident” that the construction of nuclear plants in Asia and elsewhere, along with other factors, will eventually push prices higher and justify reopening the Daneros mine.

Map sourced from BLM

88543

twotimer

12-11-2017, 10:28 PM

rockgremlin

12-12-2017, 03:59 PM

stefan -

There is some truth to the article you posted concerning Daneros and Uranium mining. There may have been lobbyists hired to whisper in Zinke's ear to somehow influence monument decisions. I get that. That's what any responsible company would do when confronted with policy that affects their bottom line. But even if that did happen, it doesn't change several fundamental truths about the Uranium mining profile in that part of the State of Utah.

First, the Daneros Mine was already carved out of the original BENM boundary, right? That said, the reduction of the BENM shouldn't have had too much of an impact. Daneros was already outside of the BENM, and now it's even farther outside of the BENM. So what?

Second, the Daneros Mine was idled in 2012. There hasn't been any activity there in years. Their adits have been sealed. See where I'm going with this? The threat of them just going gangbusters in there and running amok, burying Native American relics and desecrating the area is a fairy tale that is just untrue and unfounded. They keep an active permit, but that doesn't mean they're producing anything currently or will produce anything in the immediate future.

Third, outside of the idled Daneros Mine, there is literally ZERO Uranium mining activity anywhere in Utah. Not even a blip on the screen, from anyone, anywhere. The economic and business climate is just too frigid to support that industry right now. Especially when Uranium can be mined so much cheaper and easier in other parts of the world.

All of this said, I'm going to echo what Brian in SLC alluded to earlier: If there isn't anything in the way of mineral exploitation and development, why such a concerted effort to shrink the Ears?

I dunno. I'm baffled by the whole thing. It doesn't make any sense. Literally the only reason I can think of to do it is to satisfy the constituency and stick it to Obama. Which is a pretty lame reason in my book.

Iceaxe

12-12-2017, 05:02 PM

All of this said, I'm going to echo what Brian in SLC alluded to earlier: If there isn't anything in the way of mineral exploitation and development, why such a concerted effort to shrink the Ears?

If you are interested in what the 'other side' is thinking this is an interesting read.... posted by Lynn Jackson on Facebook....

Just sent this 600 word truth to the Desert News. We'll see if they publish it. The hysteria I'm seeing on FB, from educated people I would assume know better, is off the charts.... Off the charts.

Monumental Debacle
What a fine mess this has turned into. The result of a law that provided no system of checks or balances, but typically used appropriately for decades until the past 20 years. The result of abuse of that law, a campaign of purposeful disinformation, shady financial “contributions” to Native American tribes, and a lack of willingness to compromise one inch. Sadly, this is the state of public land management.

I worked four years as a member of the Grand County Council on Congressman Rob Bishops Public Land Initiative (PLI). It was messy, nasty and ultimately failed because the conservation side refused to give an inch. Why would they, they had a White House willing to give them what they wanted as soon as they succeeded in getting the PLI jettisoned. And now here we are.

We’ve lost our way in this country. No one understands or is willing to look for compromise. Everyone’s an “expert” because they’ve read two or three stories and visited public lands. Give my side what we want, or we’ll have a President bludgeon you into submission. Give us what we want, or we will destroy you. I used to think we were better than this, but sadly this is what we’re all about now.

I don’t know any conservatives who are completely against protecting some of our prized lands, but the other side wants it all or nothing. Conservatives simply ask for some balance, some form of common sense to guide these types of decisions. Now, not only did the environmentalists not get what they wanted, but their unwillingness to compromise or listen to local elected officials and communities, will likely result in a wholesale re-write of the Antiquities Act, which in my opinion must be done so we can avoid this type of insanity in the future.

The campaign of disinformation has now kicked into high gear. The miners and oil drillers allegedly waiting at the border. The State ready to sell all the land off to industrial development. The utter ruination of these lands at hand. All absolutely and patently false. It’s sad. People being fed a constant stream of lies, praying on their emotions and lack of any meaningful frame of reference for understanding public lands and the laws that govern management of those lands.
I would recommend people study and research the issue before forming their opinion, but many people won’t take or have the time, and many others aren’t interested in the truth. And goodness knows, the truth is hard to find. So, it’s much easier to stick with ones’ dogmatic views, too distressing to find out one is being lied to and manipulated. Much more fun to attack elected leaders’ motivations and character, and spew hatred.

The Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase land was and will remain federal land. Your conservative elected leaders are even willing to give you a new national park in the Escalante region, and willing to legislatively remove the discretion from land management agencies, required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to look for balance and multiple use, by declaring no leasing for 1.2 million acres of land in the former Bears Ears area. I’m certain that won’t be enough.

We’ll now spend millions of dollars and a decade in litigation, and the Antiquities Act will be re-written. All because one side refused any form of compromise, and preferred to force their views and opinions on the rest of us. Shame on them. They need to look in the mirror and realize they have only themselves to blame for this debacle.

DirkHammergate

12-12-2017, 05:57 PM

DirkHammergate

12-12-2017, 05:59 PM

I hear ya...I just can't imagine that the folks that want to sterilize Christmas would line up behind the guy.

So you see Jesus as an unabashed Capitalist?

DirkHammergate

12-12-2017, 06:53 PM

Nah man, you've got it totally backwards...it's the liberals that would crucify his ass all over again. Especially the Jewish hierarchy that hate Israel.

Jesus would be a Republican.

PROBABLY FAKE NEWS.....

"MIDLAND CITY, Ala. – The wife of embattled Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore drew ridicule online after she declared that "one of our attorneys is a Jew," and said some of their close friends are "Jewish and rabbis" while defending him against accusations that he doesn't care for blacks or Jews.Speaking at a campaign rally Monday night in Midland City, Alabama, Kayla Moore pointed out that her husband appointed the first black marshal to the state Supreme Court. She said they also have many friends who are black.
But she raised the most eyebrows in her defense against claims that her husband, who's a Republican, is anti-Semitic.

"Well, one of our attorneys is a Jew," Kayla Moore said, pausing for effect and nodding before adding, "We have very close friends who are Jewish and rabbis and we also fellowship with them."
People immediately reacted online, some expressing anger but many others made jokes. They mocked her for citing an association with a professional whom she and her husband pay to do work for them as a way to prove they don't dislike Jewish people. Some said her comments echoed the "I have a black friend" comments often derisively attributed to people defending themselves against allegations of bigotry and racism.
Kayla Moore's assertions were just the latest flashpoint for controversy in a campaign that's been rocked by accusations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls when her husband was in his 30s. He's running against Democrat Doug Jones in Tuesday's special election."

stefan

01-31-2018, 09:35 AM

A modern land run? Trump move opens Utah to mining claims under 1872 law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw federal protections from millions of acres of Utah wilderness will reopen much of the iconic terrain to gold, silver, copper, and uranium land claims under a Wild West-era mining law, according to federal officials.

Starting at 6 a.m. on Feb. 2 – the moment Trump’s proclamation reducing the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments takes effect – private citizens and companies will be allowed to stake claims for hard rock mining in a process governed by the General Mining Law of 1872, according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

The process for staking a claim remains much as it did during the Gold Rush: A prospector hammers four poles into the ground corresponding to the four points of a parcel that can be as big as 20 acres, and attaches a written description of the claim onto one of them. A prospector then has 30 days to record the claim at the local BLM ....

more
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-utah-mining/a-modern-land-run-trump-move-opens-utah-to-mining-claims-under-1872-law-idUSKBN1FK1MA

Iceaxe

01-31-2018, 11:46 AM

^^^ #FakeNews #FearMongering #StiringThePot

A land rush? Really?!? I bet not one legitimate claim is filed.

The land reverts back to the same rules as a year ago before Bears Ears was created. There are about one hundred good reasons there will be no land rush, they are the same reasons there was not a land rush before Bears Ears.

FWIW - nearly all Federal land operates under the same 1872 mining laws, and yes you can still stake a claim, but then you must actually begin working the site and extracting valuable ore.

Back in high school a friend and I actually had a mining claim up Big Cottonwood Canyon, after the novelty wore off maintaining the claim was more trouble and money than it was worth, which is exactly what happens with most these types of claims.

rockgremlin

01-31-2018, 11:47 AM

rockgremlin

01-31-2018, 11:48 AM

^^^ #FakeNews #FearMongering #StiringThePot

A land rush? Really?!? I bet not one legitimate claim is filed.

The land reverts back to the same rules as a year ago before Bears Ears was created. There are about one hundred good reasons there will be no land rush, they are the same reasons there was not a land rush before Bears Ears.

FWIW - nearly all Federal land operates under the same 1872 mining laws, and yes you can still stake a claim, but then you must actually begin working the site and extracting valuable ore. Back in high school a friend and I actually had so mining claim up Big Cottonwood Canyon, after the novelty wore off maintaining the claim was more trouble and money than it was worth, which is exactly what happens with most these types of claims.

^^^THIS

Get some education outside of Reuters. For once.

stefan

01-31-2018, 11:53 AM

uhhhhhhh......this shit again? You're trolling now, right?

This topic has been addressed ad nauseum on so many levels. But you just refuse to see anything else besides a doomsday scenario. Catastrophize much?

:crazy:

uhh ... i posted an article from reuters, rock. you claiming what the article says is false? i don't believe i've made any personal statements, but i know folks around here like to read a lot into things.

stefan

01-31-2018, 12:37 PM

Get some education outside of Reuters. For once.

i'm always interested in your opinion rock.

(as per etiquette, i only posted the intro paragraphs to the article but it alludes to some of what you've said previously)

rockgremlin

01-31-2018, 05:08 PM

i'm always interested in your opinion rock.

(as per etiquette, i only posted the intro paragraphs to the article but it alludes to some of what you've said previously)

You're killin' me, Smalls.

In my book, dropping a link to a controversial topic and then running away without providing your opinion or any other narrative is classic troll behavior. Like lobbing a golf ball into a hornet's nest and then giggling and running away before the ensuing storm of stingers catches up to you.

stefan

01-31-2018, 05:55 PM

You're killin' me, Smalls.

In my book, dropping a link to a controversial topic and then running away without providing your opinion or any other narrative is classic troll behavior. Like lobbing a golf ball into a hornet's nest and then giggling and running away before the ensuing storm of stingers catches up to you.

or it's something considerably less sinister like posting an update on a topic. i didn't realize how sensationally something that commonly occurs on this site would be perceived.

i have appreciated all of your input on the topic. all i can tell you on this one, short of speculation or discussing alternatives to decisions that have already been set in motion, is ... time will tell. i am certainly interested in seeing your thoughts on the matter play out over the next decade+ and that starts feb 2.

twotimer

01-31-2018, 06:18 PM

I agree with both you guys. I personally never post links, but if I did I'd certainly comment on it.

There are a bunch of people living like hippies in the San Luis Valley here in Colorado...it's down by Alamosa. They're MILES from town but live in tee-pees and dilapidated lean-tos. All of the land there is private, so they either bought a chunk or are renting. A lot of them living off the grid. There was a big segment on the local news about it a couple months ago.

That kind of thing happening near Blanding or Escalante isn't likely, but some big company tearing into giant chunks is a nightmare for the pessimist crowd. Hayduke, man...

Time will tell, but I'd bet nothing much is going to change there. Personally, I'd like it to slow down a bit...if they were to start restricting camping around Cedar Mesa or off the HRR, that would suck.

rockgremlin

02-01-2018, 06:52 AM

As I have already stated...numerous times before...if there was anything of value in the way of exploitable minerals in the area of Bears Ears, it would have already been mined by somebody at some point before now.

Why stefan insists there is going to be this mad rush of prospectors and greedy land grabbers snapping up claims and paving paradise to put up a parking lot at high noon on February 2nd is beyond me. I'm bookmarking this thread and marking my calendar for mid-2019 so that I can bring it back up and ask howcome there's no gold and silver mining in the Abajo Mountains? Or howcome there isn't a brand new uranium mine in the Comb Ridge?

I can assert my stance with 100% certitude. If you knew who my employer was you'd understand why I am so confident...

Sombeech

02-01-2018, 08:18 AM

Get some education outside of Reuters. For once.

Hey, Reuters posted one of my videos, so they're legit :lol8:

Here's a thought; If anybody is truly thinking the mining industry will take off in this area, and if they're smart, they would be investing in the mining industry here. After all, it's going to go crazy, right? It's a great time to hop on board. Make money from your enemies! Invest in Bears Ears Mining Co.

Damnit I just thought of a great LLC company name, be right back

rockgremlin

02-01-2018, 08:22 AM

^^^Hells yeah! The Bears Ears Mining Co., LLC -- There's not much in the way of precious metals, but I hear there's a fairly large bitcoin deposit on the Northeastern flank of the Abajo Mountains...:naughty:

uintafly

02-01-2018, 08:31 AM

https://goldrushexpeditions.com/mining-claims-for-sale/

Here you go. Make your dreams come true.

rockgremlin

02-01-2018, 08:50 AM

https://goldrushexpeditions.com/mining-claims-for-sale/

Here you go. Make your dreams come true.

Hmmmm...not a single claim in Utah. That's crazy!! I would've expected to see at least a half dozen in the Dark Canyon Wilderness area, or maybe on the outskirts of Blanding.

Personally, I liked the following claim:

88805

tallsteve

02-01-2018, 10:46 AM

...Invest in Bears Ears Mining Co. Damnit I just thought of a great LLC company name, be right back

Replacement name for Bogley? I'd bet you get a TON of new, site visitors with a website name like that! :roflol:

Sombeech

02-01-2018, 11:46 AM

Replacement name for Bogley? I'd bet you get a TON of new, site visitors with a website name like that! :roflol:

Bears Ear Non Outdoorsy Community.

Scott P

02-01-2018, 12:38 PM

Bears Ear Non Outdoorsy Community.

With a description up top that says "We hate the outdoors".

DirkHammergate

02-01-2018, 01:06 PM

"We hate the outdoors".

"We hate the outdoors, In Fracking We Trust"

Sombeech

02-02-2018, 11:34 AM

"We hate the outdoors, In Fracking We Trust"

We hate the outdoors only if there's a Republican in office

stefan

02-02-2018, 08:11 PM

As I have already stated...numerous times before...if there was anything of value in the way of exploitable minerals in the area of Bears Ears, it would have already been mined by somebody at some point before now.

i hear you loud and clear, but value can change over time. for the first time in nearly 50 years, the US is now producing 10 million barrels of oil per day.

Why stefan insists there is going to be this mad rush of prospectors and greedy land grabbers snapping up claims and paving paradise to put up a parking lot

i've not insisted anything (and neither did the article). you're just reading a lot into things.

on February 2nd is beyond me. I'm bookmarking this thread and marking my calendar for mid-2019 so that I can bring it back up and ask howcome there's no gold and silver mining in the Abajo Mountains? Or howcome there isn't a brand new uranium mine in the Comb Ridge?

significance of the date is the date of the change in land management policy---nothing necessarily imminent. my interest lies in impact to the land over many decades of time. if what you say is true, then it will play out over the next 50 years and we'll see it. you certainly make a strong case. but, you must understand, for me, when it comes to the long term, there is a still a question mark.

Iceaxe

02-02-2018, 08:55 PM

So what happened to the huge lines to register mining claims that some clueless dumbass at Reuters predicted would occur on February 2nd?

stefan

02-02-2018, 09:09 PM

So what happened to the huge lines to register mining claims that some clueless dumbass at Reuters predicted would occur on February 2nd?

the article doesn't say that.

Iceaxe

02-02-2018, 10:02 PM

the article doesn't say that.The headline pretty much says exactly that...

"A modern land run? Trump move opens Utah to mining claims under 1872 law."

The rest of the article actually went downhill after that with bullshit, lies, and fear mongering mixed with some facts....

Iceaxe

02-03-2018, 04:27 PM

FWIW - No, zilch, none, nada, zero mining claims have been filed so far in any of the land stripped from Bears Ears or Escalante...

Which is exactly what those of us involved in Utah mining predicted.

And no legitimate claims will be filed, however I'm waiting for one of the tree huggers, forest fairies or rock lickers to file a claim to make a point as it only costs $155 to file, which is good for one year.

Sombeech

02-03-2018, 06:06 PM

Because Trump bought all of the mining rights using his Presidential privilege and gave them to Putin, he be Putin his equipment in the ground

rockgremlin

02-03-2018, 11:12 PM

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46252402&nid=157&title=lands-stripped-from-utah-monuments-open-to-claims-leases

Hmmmm....pretty much says almost verbatim what I've been claiming all along.

Scott P

02-03-2018, 11:38 PM

Oil and uranium prices are really low now, so even if reserves are known or will be known, they probably wouldn't be economically viable. Those areas are pretty remote.

That doesn't mean the prices will always stay low however.

We need oil and other minerals, but if the price does go up, hopefully it can be done outside the sensitive areas and be done responsibly.

I remember the same argument being used for areas adjacent to the High Uintas Wilderness area a few decades ago. Some areas were still torn up when oil either rose or was expected to rise and it really wasn't done responsibly. An oil company (I'm not sure which one) really ripped up the area around Middle Fork Hayden Fork (the next drainage west of Christmas Meadows), which was formerly roadless at that point and they left big metal signs all over the places and constructed the road in a very intrusive manner, while obliterating the existing hiking and horsepacking trail.

Mining is a very important and very essential industry. Just like politicians though, sometimes it's hard to trust that the mining companies will do the right thing.

Iceaxe

02-04-2018, 07:26 AM

^^^except for the simple fact there is no oil under Bears Ears or Escalante.

Scott P

02-04-2018, 09:11 AM

^^^except for the simple fact there is no oil under Bears Ears or Escalante.

Would you like to bet on that?

https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/maps/interactive-map-oil-and-gas-resources-utah

Iceaxe

02-04-2018, 10:16 AM

***insert eyeroll here***

Let me know when the drill rigs start rolling into town.

Udink

02-04-2018, 10:38 AM

Would you like to bet on that?

https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/maps/interactive-map-oil-and-gas-resources-utah
That map doesn't appear to show actual reserves, just wells. The overwhelming majority of the wells shown in the former Bears Ears NM area are dry holes. I spot checked a few of the wells that are not listed as dry holes, and their status is "Plugged and Abandoned."

twotimer

02-04-2018, 01:19 PM

I've hiked all over that entire part of the state. Lots of backcountry stuff. Within the last 100 years people have been all over the place...you'll find equipment, shacks, roads and tracks, old trash and camps, parking areas, old drill holes, remnants of mining operations...I'd like to see a map of every spot humans have impacted within that time. I'm sure it would look like somebody vomited all over it. I suspect it looked that way as well when the Anasazi where runin' around.

The only thing that matters to me is that I'm able to pull off the road damn near anywhere and throw down a tent. I'm not going to worry one bit about how the people 50 years from now are going to be managing the place...good luck to the future , man.

I care about the place right now, that's for sure. It's an Indian Disneyland and I spend time there every year. May actually be there next week, in fact. I don't feel that the place is threatened, and I pity the people that fret over it.

Sombeech

02-04-2018, 08:57 PM

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46252402&nid=157&title=lands-stripped-from-utah-monuments-open-to-claims-leases

Hmmmm....pretty much says almost verbatim what I've been claiming all along.

I just thought of an incredible money making opportunity for these Bears Ears area mining claims, if there are any left available.

We (meaning you) would buy a claim, knowing there's not much in the ground worth extracting, and then we start a campaign to "Pay miners not to mine Bears Ears". We (meaning me) would start collecting money from those who want to keep Bears Ears free from mining. Environmentalists would save the area, as we would painstakingly agree to not cut into the life giving soil, and the miners would win too because they're still getting their blood money, or racism money, whatever it's called now, as long as it's got them US Presidents on them bills.

rockgremlin

02-05-2018, 06:41 AM

***insert eyeroll here***

Let me know when the drill rigs start rolling into town.

You'll be waiting for a very long time.

Iceaxe

02-05-2018, 06:56 AM

I just thought of an incredible money making opportunity for these Bears Ears area mining claims, if there are any left available.

We (meaning you) would buy a claim, knowing there's not much in the ground worth extracting, and then we start a campaign to "Pay miners not to mine Bears Ears". We (meaning me) would start collecting money from those who want to keep Bears Ears free from mining. Environmentalists would save the area, as we would painstakingly agree to not cut into the life giving soil, and the miners would win too because they're still getting their blood money, or racism money, whatever it's called now, as long as it's got them US Presidents on them bills.

Actually something similar to this was done in the Sierra's. Guys would stake a claim and then build nice cabins and summer homes on the claim. They had no intention of mining, it was just a cheap loophole to gain control over a great building lot. The practice is now illegal but I'd have to look up exactly what they did to stop it. I know in Utah in addition to the $155 a year you also have to do some actual mining to maintain the claim.

rockgremlin

02-05-2018, 07:39 AM

in Utah in addition to the $155 a year you also have to do some actual mining to maintain the claim.

Yep. Utah sends out inspectors once a month to oversee mining activities. If there's no mining, the permits get revoked.

stefan

02-06-2018, 08:36 PM

The headline pretty much says exactly that...

"A modern land run? Trump move opens Utah to mining claims under 1872 law."

The rest of the article actually went downhill after that with bullshit, lies, and fear mongering mixed with some facts....

nah. you got it wrong.

first, after "land run" in the title there is a question mark which means it's posing a question, not making a claim.

the first 6 paragraphs of the article report plainly about date of policy change, mining claims, and that the BLM is preparing maps. (doesn't suggest people are going to line up nor is there any fear mongering).

then it says

URANIUM RUSH? MAYBE NOT

and proceeds to list a few parties (including Energy Fuels) that one might expect to have an interest instead indicating their lack of interest in claims. which means the article is suggesting the answer to the question "a modern land run?" appears more likely to be "not," which is the opposite of what you suggested the article was saying.

i'm guessing you'll call any reporting of conservation groups' concerns "fear mongering" but please point out what in the remainder of the article is "bullshit" and "lies." i'm interested.

judging an article based on its headline (or how your interpretation of the headline pushes your buttons) can lead to trouble. i don't have strong feelings about this article. just posted it to mark the change in land management policy occurring two days later.

Iceaxe

02-06-2018, 09:57 PM

^^^YAWN^^^

Call me when the drillers and miners start rolling into town.... better pack a big lunch because it's going to be a looooong wait..

#FakeNews #FearMongers

rockgremlin

02-07-2018, 05:02 PM

nah. you got it wrong.

first, after "land run" in the title there is a question mark which means it's posing a question, not making a claim.

the first 6 paragraphs of the article report plainly about date of policy change, mining claims, and that the BLM is preparing maps. (doesn't suggest people are going to line up nor is there any fear mongering).

then it says

URANIUM RUSH? MAYBE NOT

and proceeds to list a few parties (including Energy Fuels) that one might expect to have an interest instead indicating their lack of interest in claims. which means the article is suggesting the answer to the question "a modern land run?" appears more likely to be "not," which is the opposite of what you suggested the article was saying.

i'm guessing you'll call any reporting of conservation groups' concerns "fear mongering" but please point out what in the remainder of the article is "bullshit" and "lies." i'm interested.

judging an article based on its headline (or how your interpretation of the headline pushes your buttons) can lead to trouble. i don't have strong feelings about this article. just posted it to mark the change in land management policy occurring two days later.

OK, I'll admit it. I didn't read the article. I judged the book by its cover. A knee jerk reaction. My apologies.

But I'll acknowledge that I was acting rashly, and thank you for coming in after the fact to point out the fine print.

accadacca

02-08-2018, 06:48 PM

Zinke to visit Salt Lake expo Friday for 'major' conservation announcement

SALT LAKE CITY — Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke will once again visit Utah, making a special appearance at the Western Hunting & Conservation Expo on Friday at the Salt Palace Convention Center.

A release from the U.S. Department of Interior said Zinke will make a "major conservation announcement" and take questions from the media.

This will be Zinke's third visit to the Beehive State in under a year, with him first visiting last May to tour the Bears Ears (https://www.ksl.com/?sid=44181312&nid=148&title=interior-secretary-zinke-to-visit-famed-dugout-ranch) and Grand Staircase national monuments as part of a review directed by President Donald Trump.

When Trump visited last December to issue proclamations downsizing the monuments, Zinke spoke at the state Capitol (https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=46210587).

Zinke described the Bears Ears region as "drop-dead gorgeous" country and expressed concern over the size of the 1.35 million-acre monument declared by former President Barack Obama in December of 2016. He noted similar concerns about the size of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument at 1.9 million acres and devoted much of his time hearing concerns from Garfield and Kane county leaders.

The accompanying reductions are under legal challenge by multiple organizations.

He is also behind a proposed massive reorganization of his department to streamline the various functions of multiple branches, including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.

During briefings he has held with multiple organizations, he's said some agencies would be better headquartered in the West such as Denver and Salt Lake City.

Last Friday, the Interior Department's associate deputy James Cason and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, hosted a meeting involving dozens of rural county commissioners from multiple states to hear concerns and detail the possible reorganization of the department.

Bishop, who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, and all five of his subcommittee chairmen, sent a letter (https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/1-31-18_bishop_chairmen_ltr_to_zinke_re_doi_reorganizat ion.pdf) to Zinke on Jan. 31 applauding the proposed reorganization plans.

The hunting and conservation expo began Thursday and continues through Sunday.https://beacon.deseretconnect.com/beacon.gif?cid=585794&pid=4&notrack

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46256711&nid=757&title=zinke-to-visit-salt-lake-expo-friday-for-major-conservation-announcement

stefan

03-02-2018, 10:46 AM

a little light reading ... first link leads to the documents. red highlighting just to highlight escalante.

Oil, [Gas, and Coal] Was Central in Decision to Shrink [Monuments], Emails Show
NYT

WASHINGTON — Even before President Trump officially opened his high-profile review last spring of federal lands protected as national monuments, the Department of Interior was focused on the potential for oil and gas exploration at a protected Utah site, internal agency documents show (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/).

The debate started as early as March 2017, when an aide to Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, asked a senior Interior Department official to consider reduced boundaries for Bears Ears National Monument (https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/bears-ears-national-monument) in southeastern Utah to remove land that contained oil and natural gas deposits that had been set aside to help fund public schools.

“Please see attached for a shapefile and pdf of a map depicting a boundary change for the southeast portion of the Bears Ears monument,” said the March 15 email from Senator Hatch’s office. Adopting this map would “resolve all known mineral conflicts,” the email said, referring to oil and gas sites (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p55/a407696) on the land that the state’s public schools wanted to lease out to bolster funds.

The map that Mr. Hatch’s office provided, which was transmitted about a month before Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke publicly initiated his review of national monuments, was incorporated almost exactly into the much larger reductions President Trump announced in December (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/trump-bears-ears.html), shrinking Bears Ears by 85 percent.

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has been focused on expanding oil, gas and coal development and sweeping away Obama-era environmental initiatives that the administration contends hurt America’s energy industry. The debate over shrinking national monuments sparked a fierce political battle, now being fought in the courts, over how much land needs federal protection.

Mr. Zinke has said that the agency review process made no presumptions about the outcomes. “We want to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard,” Mr. Zinke said at a news conference in May during a visit to Bears Ears.

Most of the deliberations took place behind closed doors. The internal Interior Department emails — more than 25,000 pages in total — were obtained by The New York Times after it sued the agency in federal court with the assistance of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (https://law.yale.edu/mfia) at Yale University Law School. The lawsuit cited the agency’s failure to respond to an open records request in August asking for internal records related to the deliberations.

The bulk of the documents made public by the Interior Department — about 20,000 pages of them — detail the yearslong effort during the Obama administration to create new monuments, including input from environmental groups, Indian tribes, state officials and members of Congress. President Barack Obama created or expanded 29 national monuments (https://www.npca.org/resources/2658-monuments-protected-under-the-antiquities-act) during his tenure, representing a total of about 553 million acres, more than any of his predecessors.

The remaining pages, a total of approximately 4,500 files, relate to the Trump administration’s reconsideration of these actions by Mr. Obama and other presidents.

Heather Swift, the Interior Department spokeswoman, said in a statement that, in reviewing monuments, “The Secretary took into consideration the views of a variety of interested parties, such as members of congress, governors, state and tribal leaders, and the public, including the views of those parties as to possible revised monument boundaries. One such organization that weighed in was the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) which is responsible for funding so the children of Utah receive a quality education.”

Matthew Whitlock, a spokesman for Senator Hatch, said that the senator has been involved in discussions around Bears Ears for years. He emphasized that some of the land had long been designated to help fund local schools, and that Senator Hatch’s interest was to protect the school funding.

The internal Interior Department emails and memos also show the central role that concerns over gaining access to coal reserves played in the decision by the Trump administration to shrink the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by about 47 percent, to just over 1 million acres.

Mr. Zinke’s staff developed a series of estimates on the value of coal that could potentially be mined from a section of Grand Staircase called the Kaiparowits plateau (http://files.geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/gsekcoal.htm). As a result of Mr. Trump’s action, major parts of the area (http://suwa.org/wp-content/uploads/GSENM_Coal.pdf) are no longer a part of the national monument.

“The Kaiparowits plateau, located within the monument, contains one of the largest coal deposits in the United States,” an Interior Department memo, issued in the spring of 2017 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p122/a407718), said. About 11.36 billion tons are “technologically recoverable,” it projected.

From the start of the Interior Department review process, agency officials directed staff to figure out how much coal, oil and natural gas (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p110/a407706) — as well as grass for cattle grazing and timber — had been put essentially off limits, or made harder to access, by the decision to designate the areas as national monuments.

One memo, for example, asked Interior staff to prepare a report on each n (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p82/a407703)ational m (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p82/a407703)onument (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p82/a407703), with a yellow highlighter on the documents emphasizing the need to examine in detail “annual production of coal, oil, gas and renewables (if any) on site; amount of energy transmission infrastructure on site (if any).” It was followed up by a reminder to staff in June to also look at how the decision to create new National Monuments in Utah might have hurt area mines.

“Sorry about this, but this came from DOI late yesterday,” Timothy Fisher, the leader of the National Monuments and Consetion Areas program at Interior wrote to his colleagues (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p110/a407706), referring to the Department of Interior headquarters in Washington. “Are there mines or processing facilities near or adjacent to a National Monument?” he wrote. He also asked how the protection of the federal lands may have affected mining.

In another email exchange, in May, two Bureau of Land Management officials said that Mr. Zinke’s chief of staff for policy, Downey Magallanes, had phoned to ask for information on a uranium mill in or near the Bears Ears monument (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/climate/trump-uranium-bears-ears.html). The request sought “economic data to the extent available,” as well as grazing and hunting maps.

And on July 17, Ms. Magallanes and Mr. Zinke’s counselor for energy policy, Vincent DeVito, met with representatives of a uranium mining company. The company, Energy Fuels Resources Inc., said its representatives hoped to discuss its White Mesa uranium mill (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p184/a407714) as well as the Daneros uranium mine, both adjacent to the Bears Ears monument.

In addition to Paul Goranson, a top executive at Energy Fuels Resources, the meeting included Mary Bono, a former Republican congresswoman from California; and Andrew Wheeler, then a lobbyist at the firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting and now awaiting confirmation to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ms. Swift, the Interior Department spokeswoman, said that no uranium mine or milling operations were located within the boundaries of either the original or modified Bears Ears National Monument.

The debate over oil and gas reserves below the ground in Bears Ears started during the Obama administration, the documents show (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391967-National-Monuments-a-Look-at-the-Debate-From.html#document/p7/a407691), with officials from Utah State Board of Education writing to the Interior Department objecting to the plan to designate the area as a national monument.

Before Utah became a state, in 1896, the federal government granted so-called trust lands to support state institutions, like the public schools, given that nearly 70 percent of the land in the state is federally controlled.

The state has generated more than $1.7 billion in revenue from the trust lands to support public schools, mostly by selling off mineral rights and allowing private companies to extract oil or gas. The Bears Ears National Monument created by President Obama in 2016 included about 110,000 acres of these trust lands, eliminating the potential for resource sales, the state said.

John Andrews, associate director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, which oversees the lands designated for school funding, acknowledged that the new Bears Ears boundaries approved by Mr. Trump, which reduced the land removed from the trust’s management to about 22,000 acres, reflected his group’s request to exclude trust lands from federal protection.

1COMMENTBut he noted that Mr. Trump ultimately reduced the monument by a much larger amount than his organization had sought.
“Obviously they were looking at facts other than the ones we had raised, we assume,” he said.

Mr. Whitlock, the spokesman for Mr. Hatch, said, “Senator Hatch is grateful these emails have been released because they make very clear that his priority in addressing the Bears Ears situation was looking out for the people of Utah.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/climate/bears-ears-national-monument.html

Iceaxe

03-02-2018, 06:09 PM

Hatch: 'Greedy energy tycoons' not behind Bears Ears reduction
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=46272679&nid=960

stefan

03-04-2018, 12:15 PM

Hatch: 'Greedy energy tycoons' not behind Bears Ears reduction
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=46272679&nid=960

hatch clearly has trouble reading the NYT article

Iceaxe

03-06-2018, 06:09 AM

DirkHammergate

03-06-2018, 11:34 AM

It will be a great road, a big beautiful road, a road Americans can be proud of.

This should really get the liberals panties in a bunch.... The Trump National Parks Highway will run right through the center of what was Bears Ears NM.

Utah one step closer to becoming home of Trump National Highway
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=46274188&nid=960

These bumpkins are slipping... Shouldn't they first name the Highway "Obama National Parks Highway" then reverse it and rename it "Trump National Parks Highway". Same road and same functionality, different name so its better. I'm here to help.

twotimer

03-06-2018, 12:00 PM

If naming it the Trump Highway keeps fewer people from gang banging the place, that'll work fine with me.

Iceaxe

03-06-2018, 12:59 PM

If naming it the Trump Highway keeps fewer people from gang banging the place, that'll work fine with me.

I think there should be a big beautiful wall, with a big beautiful gate, built at both ends of the highway to keep the Subaru's out.

:roflol:

twotimer

03-06-2018, 03:55 PM

I think there should be a big beautiful wall, with a big beautiful gate, built at both ends of the highway to keep the Subaru's out.

:roflol:HA!...I don't mind the Subaru's that much, they've been around forever. It's all those big RV's and campers. I've noticed a lot more of them parked there and about in Cedar Mesa and I'd like it not to turn into the east end of the swell.

I guess I just miss the "wild" feeling it had 25 years ago.

DirkHammergate

03-06-2018, 04:12 PM

HA!...I don't mind the Subaru's that much, they've been around forever. It's all those big RV's and campers. I've noticed a lot more of them parked there and about in Cedar Mesa and I'd like it not to turn into the east end of the swell.

I guess I just miss the "wild" feeling it had 25 years ago.

I've agreed with TwoTimer a few times...

This could be the dumbest thing IxeAce has ever said. I drove a Suby waaaaay before I turned into a Lesbian. At least Suburu owners get out and Dog's drive their cars in commercials.

Suburu's > RV's

I'm with you 2Timer... 27 years ago I went to the Swell for the first time. I saw like 10 cars over 3 days.... I was in college (from California) and about 2 days in I decided I'd never leave Utah. I miss those days as well.

Iceaxe

03-06-2018, 04:16 PM

I totally agree

Subaru > RV

But that's still like bragging about being the best reader in the dumb reading group.

ROFLMAO

DirkHammergate

03-06-2018, 05:14 PM

But that's still like bragging about being the best reader in the dumb reading group.

Haha, I totally agree, I've noticed you read reeel good!

stefan

06-19-2018, 07:49 PM

PRESS RELEASE:

Acquisition of Colt Mesa Copper-Cobalt Property, Utah,
Surface Grab Samples Return 0.88% Copper and 2.31% Cobalt

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, June 13, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Glacier Lake Resources Inc. (TSXV:GLI) – (“Glacier” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce the acquisition of the “Colt Mesa” copper-cobalt property in Garfield County, southcentral Utah. The property is readily accessible by gravel roads from Boulder, the closest community with services and support. Key takeaways:

Property covers the past producing Colt Mesa mine, a copper deposit with associated cobalt, zinc, nickel and molybdenum mineralization.

Area recently became open for staking and exploration after a 21 year period moratorium, due to the reduction of the “Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument” by President Trump in December 2017.

“The Colt Mesa acquisition broadens our focus on sedimentary hosted copper deposits, with a significant bonus of cobalt and nickel mineralization indicated. There is strong investor interest in the “Battery Metals” sector, including cobalt, nickel and copper. With this new interest coupled with the growth of the EV sector and strong demand for cobalt, the Colt Mesa project is a welcome addition to the Company’s ever growing portfolio of projects,” says Saf Dhillon, president and chief executive officer.

“Surface exploration work will start this summer on the Colt Mesa property and drill permitting will be initiated shortly.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/globe-newswire-acquisition-of-colt-mesa-copper-cobalt-property-utah-surface-grab-samples-return-0-point-88-percent-copper-and-2-point-31.html

Iceaxe

06-19-2018, 08:35 PM

^^^Earth First! We'll mine the other planets later.

[emoji106]

rockgremlin

06-19-2018, 08:43 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/globe-newswire-acquisition-of-colt-mesa-copper-cobalt-property-utah-surface-grab-samples-return-0-point-88-percent-copper-and-2-point-31.html

I wouldn't be too concerned with this. They're just boosting their portfolio to get more investors. It's a rather common trick that junior mining companies do to gain support (sell more shares of their stock). These rarely take off into the realm of production.

But I'll ask around about it for sure. :2thumbs:

twotimer

06-19-2018, 08:51 PM

I'll cruise down there this winter and see if it's getting tore up. We used to drive all the way to just before Moody Canyon to access the Waterpocket Fold during backpacking trips. Nice and lonely down there.

Anybody know if this site is south of Choprock?

rockgremlin

06-28-2018, 11:42 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/globe-newswire-acquisition-of-colt-mesa-copper-cobalt-property-utah-surface-grab-samples-return-0-point-88-percent-copper-and-2-point-31.html

OK, I did some digging (pun intended, haha). Glacier Lake Resources investors should probably change the channel at this point because they're not going to like what I have to say from here on...

As I suspected, Glacier Lake Resources is a Canadian junior mining company. Canadian juniors are notorious for drumming up support for their stock, making sensational claims about their fabulously rich mining projects scattered all over the globe. Much of the time their claims are unsubstantiated, or published with very little technical analysis or review. But hey -- these press reports are directed towards investors -- investment bankers and folks who are mostly ignorant about mining but have a lot of money to invest. As is the case with their "Colt Mesa" project in southern Utah. Here's why we won't see anybody developing this project much beyond their flimsy press release:

1. In the first place, they haven't even secured permits with the regulatory agency within the State of Utah. That's strike one...and that's a BIG strike. Without permits, no mining activity may commence -- not even exploration work may be accomplished.

2. In the second place, they are publishing Copper, Zinc, and Cobalt sampling values from surface grab samples. For those unfamiliar with mining, basically what they did was pay some high priced geologist to go pick up pretty rocks out of the old mine dump and scattered about the mine entrance and send them off to the lab for analysis. Well, of course the lab results are going to return favorable -- their geologist cherry picked the flashiest and most attractive rocks he could find to send for analysis. It probably would've looked a lot less attractive if he'd have put a blindfold on just prior to "sampling", but hey that wouldn't have yielded as promising a press release. I worked for 2 years for a copper mining Canadian junior in southern Utah, and I've seen the way this game is played. We did the exact same thing there too -- sample pretty rocks we found on the surface and then publish the results to eager investors. It happens all the time.

And if this deposit is anything like all of the other sediment hosted copper deposits in southern Utah (Copper Ridge, Fry Canyon, Lisbon Valley, Copper Globe), it is a very small vein or lode type deposit that is controlled by bedding planes and faults. So the mineralization is confined to a very small space, and is therefore NOT amenable to large scale mining. Not even the old timers were able to make much of the deposit because it was so small. Sure the grades may have been high, but the volume just isn't there, so it isn't profitable to mine.

3. Lastly, with the location of the potential mine being sandwiched between Capitol Reef and Grand Staircase National Monument, they would be fools to try and pursue mining here. The public backlash would be enormous, and they'd be fighting off environmentalists at every turn.

Short answer: Don't fret. Nobody is going to be opening up any new mine in southern Utah anytime soon...

nelsonccc

06-28-2018, 02:09 PM

OK, I did some digging (pun intended, haha). Glacier Lake Resources investors should probably change the channel at this point because they're not going to like what I have to say from here on...

As I suspected, Glacier Lake Resources is a Canadian junior mining company. Canadian juniors are notorious for drumming up support for their stock, making sensational claims about their fabulously rich mining projects scattered all over the globe. Much of the time their claims are unsubstantiated, or published with very little technical analysis or review. But hey -- these press reports are directed towards investors -- investment bankers and folks who are mostly ignorant about mining but have a lot of money to invest. As is the case with their "Colt Mesa" project in southern Utah. Here's why we won't see anybody developing this project much beyond their flimsy press release:

1. In the first place, they haven't even secured permits with the regulatory agency within the State of Utah. That's strike one...and that's a BIG strike. Without permits, no mining activity may commence -- not even exploration work may be accomplished.

2. In the second place, they are publishing Copper, Zinc, and Cobalt sampling values from surface grab samples. For those unfamiliar with mining, basically what they did was pay some high priced geologist to go pick up pretty rocks out of the old mine dump and scattered about the mine entrance and send them off to the lab for analysis. Well, of course the lab results are going to return favorable -- their geologist cherry picked the flashiest and most attractive rocks he could find to send for analysis. It probably would've looked a lot less attractive if he'd have put a blindfold on just prior to "sampling", but hey that wouldn't have yielded as promising a press release. I worked for 2 years for a copper mining Canadian junior in southern Utah, and I've seen the way this game is played. We did the exact same thing there too -- sample pretty rocks we found on the surface and then publish the results to eager investors. It happens all the time.

And if this deposit is anything like all of the other sediment hosted copper deposits in southern Utah (Copper Ridge, Fry Canyon, Lisbon Valley, Copper Globe), it is a very small vein or lode type deposit that is controlled by bedding planes and faults. So the mineralization is confined to a very small space, and is therefore NOT amenable to large scale mining. Not even the old timers were able to make much of the deposit because it was so small. Sure the grades may have been high, but the volume just isn't there, so it isn't profitable to mine.

3. Lastly, with the location of the potential mine being sandwiched between Capitol Reef and Grand Staircase National Monument, they would be fools to try and pursue mining here. The public backlash would be enormous, and they'd be fighting off environmentalists at every turn.

Short answer: Don't fret. Nobody is going to be opening up any new mine in southern Utah anytime soon...

Will you have my babies?

rockgremlin

06-28-2018, 02:41 PM

Will you have my babies?

Take me out to dinner at the Bellagio Buffet and a night of gambling and then we'll see. I don't kiss on the first date...

Iceaxe

06-28-2018, 03:08 PM

OK, I did some digging (pun intended, haha). Glacier Lake Resources investors should probably change the channel at this point because they're not going to like what I have to say from here on...

yadda, yadda........

Short answer: Don't fret. Nobody is going to be opening up any new mine in southern Utah anytime soon...

There you go again... letting facts get in the way of liberal hysteria and fear mongering...

:popcorn:

twotimer

06-28-2018, 05:25 PM

Rock 'n Roll, Rockgremlin. I'll visit that place this winter anyway...take a picture for giggles.

rockgremlin

06-28-2018, 07:23 PM

Rock 'n Roll, Rockgremlin. I'll visit that place this winter anyway...take a picture for giggles.

Take some samples at the old mine dump while you're there. There's some pretty good looking samples of copper ore around there - at least that's what their geologist claims, haha.

stefan

07-23-2018, 02:56 PM

Accidentally released emails show Trump officials dismissed benefits of protected public land
Washington Post

In a quest to shrink national monuments last year, senior Interior Department officials dismissed evidence these public lands boosted tourism and spurred archaeological discoveries, according to documents the department released this month and retracted a day later.

The thousands of pages of email correspondence chart how Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his aides instead tailored their survey of protected sites to emphasize the value of logging, ranching and energy development that would be unlocked if they were not designated as national monuments.

Comments the department’s Freedom of Information Act officers made in the documents show they sought to keep some of the references out of public view because they were “revealing [the] strategy” behind the review.

Presidents can establish national monuments in federal land or waters if they determine cultural, historical or natural resources are imperiled. In April, President Trump signed an executive order instructing Zinke to review 27 national monuments established over a period of 21 years, arguing his predecessors had overstepped their authority in placing these large sites off-limits to development.

The new documents show that as Zinke conducted his four-month review, Interior officials rejected material that would justify keeping protections in place and sought out evidence that could buttress the case for unraveling them.

On July 3, 2017, Bureau of Land Management official Nikki Moore wrote colleagues about five draft economic reports on sites under scrutiny, noting there is a paragraph within each on “our ability to estimate the value of energy and/or minerals forgone as a result of the designations.” That reference was redacted on the grounds it could “reveal strategy about the [national monument] review process.”

These redactions came to light because Interior’s FOIA office sent out a batch of documents to journalists and advocacy groups on July 16 it later removed online.

“It appears that we inadvertently posted an incorrect version of the files for the most recent National Monuments production,” officials wrote July 17. “We are requesting that if you downloaded the files already to please delete those versions.”

.
.

The inadvertently released documents show department officials dismissed some evidence that contradicted the administration’s push to revise national monument designations, which are made under the 1906 American Antiquities Act. Estimates of increased tourism revenue, analyses that existing restrictions had not hurt fishing operators and agency reports that less vandalism occurred as a result of monument designations were all set aside.

.
.

Department officials also redacted the BLM’s assessment that “it is unlikely” that the Obama administration’s establishment of the 1.3 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument “has impacted timber production” because those activities were permitted to continue.

In response to questions about Grand Staircase-Escalante, BLM wrote that “less inventory” of cultural sites would have occurred without the 1996 monument designation, noting more than twice as many sites are now identified each year than before. “More vandalism would have occurred without Monument designation,” it states, noting four visitors centers were established to help protect the area.

P. David Polly, the president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and a professor of sedimentary geology at Indiana University, said in an interview “there’s specific funding that comes” with a monument designation, which BLM itself identified in its submission as one of the reasons behind the “increase” in archaeological finds.

Polly added the funding also accounts for why the number of paleontological finds in Grand Staircase-Escalante has risen from a few hundred before 1996 to “several thousand.”

“This funding will disappear for the areas that are no longer in the monument,” he said.

Agencies typically incorporate material submitted through public comments into their regulatory proposals, but documents released under the FOIA earlier this year show Bowman told colleagues in a May 2017 webcast “barring a surprise, there is no new information that’s going to be submitted” through the public comment process on the monuments review.

Polly said the new documents show how Interior officials disregarded the material they gathered during the comment period. “They knew all of these things and went ahead and cut them anyway,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-officials-dismissed-benefits-of-national-monuments/2018/07/23/5b8b1666-8b9a-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html

Iceaxe

07-23-2018, 05:16 PM

Secretary Zinke to speak at Days of '47 Rodeo
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=46365217&nid=968

twotimer

07-23-2018, 08:39 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-officials-dismissed-benefits-of-national-monuments/2018/07/23/5b8b1666-8b9a-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html

Oh yeah...they discovered the ruins, alright.

Let's take Coyote Gulch. When I first visited it in '92, they were still running cattle in there and the ruins up in the alcove were rough, but had some shape to them. Now they're just a pile of rocks. Last time I was there in '13, two chicks were up there trippin' on mushrooms.

Somebody has dug holes at the alcove in Fold. Neon is getting gang-banged. I wonder if anyone has taken an extension ladder to get to the high ones a bit up the river?

Making it a Nat. Monument just lit it up with a spotlight, IMO. Backcountry ruins don't hold up well when they've got a bunch of people all over them. Enough unethical ones picking the sites clean and leaving trash.

Cat's outta the bag now.

Sombeech

07-23-2018, 09:34 PM

I'd like to think I get outdoors here and there, I get outdoors a couple of times a week, and travel out maybe every month. I never EVER heard anything about Bears Ears Monument, or where the hell it was until all of this "protection" came about. And ya know what? Neither did 95% of everybody else in Utah, and 99.99997% of everybody else in the country. But now they do.

So now there are those who will never set foot in the area that are convinced the oil rigs are lined up down the highway with fat greasy guys driving in white sweaty tank tops with calendars featuring pin up girls hanging in the cabs of their trucks, eating subway sandwiches longer than this run on sentence.

And then there are those who will visit the area ONLY because they want to virtue signal to all of social media that these lands are precious and they wouldn't be able to carry on with life when the Mormon Republicans come and knock down the hoodoos, although they've never had any interest in visiting prior to the politicization of the area.

And then finally the very, VERY few that have visited the area years ago, just for the joy of the outdoors. You know, weirdos. Most of them know it was a huge mistake to bring attention to this area.

double moo

07-23-2018, 10:53 PM

rockgremlin

07-23-2018, 11:00 PM

stefan

07-26-2018, 01:47 PM

So now there are those who will never set foot in the area that are convinced the oil rigs are lined up down the highway with fat greasy guys driving in white sweaty tank tops with calendars featuring pin up girls hanging in the cabs of their trucks, eating subway sandwiches longer than this run on sentence.

And then there are those who will visit the area ONLY because they want to virtue signal to all of social media that these lands are precious and they wouldn't be able to carry on with life when the Mormon Republicans come and knock down the hoodoos, although they've never had any interest in visiting prior to the politicization of the area.

so melodramatic.

And then finally the very, VERY few that have visited the area years ago, just for the joy of the outdoors. You know, weirdos. Most of them know it was a huge mistake to bring attention to this area.

the "very very few" ... the area in question has been visited for decades by more than "very few." it's not a secret, 'beech.

if you're worried about "attention" i've always been partial to the Wilderness designation which generally doesn't show up on many maps.

stefan

07-26-2018, 02:10 PM

If those who are supposedly trying to protect it would've kept their sanctimonious mouths shut it would've stayed off the radar for decades to come. As it is, the genie is now out of the bottle. And I'll give you ONE guess who let him out.

harold ickes?

90170

rockgremlin

07-26-2018, 02:42 PM

^^^Looks like parts of that proposed Escalante National Monument got converted to the present day Canyonlands + Dead Horse Point + Glen Canyon National Recreation Site.

Interesting they would've proposed a national monument that extensive given that Uranium/Vanadium mining was still pretty prevalent in those areas back then.

stefan

07-27-2018, 01:32 AM

^^^Looks like parts of that proposed Escalante National Monument got converted to the present day Canyonlands + Dead Horse Point + Glen Canyon National Recreation Site.

also most of capitol reef and the escalante bit of GSENM.

a little of the interesting early history of two utahns who originally pushed for something in the wayne county part of capitol reef is recounted at the following link on canyon tales

The Fathers of Capitol Reef National Park
http://www.math.utah.edu/~sfolias/canyontales/tale/?i=waynewonderland

Iceaxe

08-02-2018, 07:37 AM

rockgremlin

08-02-2018, 08:14 AM

Interesting article on how main stream media sold Bears Ears to the public.

http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/2018/08/01/take-it-or-leave-it-media-bias-up-close-local-part-1-cnns-spin-on-bears-ears-nm-by-jim-stiles/

CNN = lies on top of lies, on top of lies, on top of more lies. Trump was right to characterize CNN as #Fakenews.

Pretty cool article. I really like the canyon country zephyr. From what I've seen it publishes pretty balanced content. It's not often that you see an ex-board member for SUWA completely lambast the liberal agenda.

twotimer

08-02-2018, 04:29 PM

I'm going to roll on down there for a camping trip and toss cans out the window...Hayduke style.

rockgremlin

08-16-2018, 06:50 AM

Federal agency issues proposals for downsized Utah monuments

By Brady McCombs, Associated Press | Posted Aug 15th, 2018

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The U.S. government on Wednesday issued proposals for managing two national monuments in Utah that were significantly downsized by President Donald Trump last year, saying its preference for one of the sites would be the "least restrictive to energy and mining development."

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46376675&nid=1417&title=federal-agency-issues-proposals-for-downsized-utah-monuments

:roll::roll::roll: [sigh] Another ridiculous article about the atrocities of BENM reduction. Most of this article is recycled drivel we've all heard before countless times. The same old narrative -- "The mining and drilling companies are going to ravage our National monuments!"

Before any of this nonsense gets out of control, I'm going to remind everyone that there is almost nothing of mineral value in the original BENM boundaries. Non economical quantities of oil exist is small quantities, and non economical quantities of Uranium exist just outside the boundaries, and there isn't a speck of coal anywhere in the region.

Grand Staircase NM is a different story. There do exist millions of tons of good quality coal in the Grand Staircase National Monument. The vast coal reserves in GSNM could feasibly be exploited, and back in the mid 1990's Andalex was right on the verge of pulling the trigger on opening up a mine in the Kaiparowits to do just that. Even though Clinton's monument designation put a damper on their plans, they still could have gone forward with their plans to open the Smoky Hollow mine. They already damn near had permits in hand from the State of Utah. But they ended up not proceeding with their plans to mine -- mainly because they realized the economics weren't favorable. So if Andalex pulled out of that venture back in the 1990's - the height of coal's prominence - how much less attractive is that venture today? It's just not going to happen anytime soon.

Or maybe ever.

Iceaxe

08-16-2018, 08:25 AM

When do we start drilling?!?

Asking for a friend....

90299

rockgremlin

08-16-2018, 12:18 PM

Speaking of coal in the Grand Staircase, here's a video of a natural coal burn. This occurs when a coal seam that is exposed on the surface is ignited by something. In many cases lightning can touch off a coal seam and get a fire started that will propagate underground, sometimes for long distances. Although somewhat shocking to behold, this is a completely natural occurrence, and can burn and smolder on its own beneath the surface for years.

{sigh} What a waste, right? It's almost like Mother Nature is saying "Fine. You don't wanna burn my coal? I'll just burn it myself!"

http://youtu.be/9JxRYC3LL60

jman

08-16-2018, 12:32 PM

rockgremlin

08-16-2018, 12:40 PM

[emoji7][emoji7]

How far away from HITR is that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dunno, it's not my video. I wish I knew though because I'd love to take a trip out there to check this out in person.

oldno7

08-16-2018, 12:50 PM

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/geosights/geosights-smoky-mountain/#toggle-id-1

jman

08-16-2018, 01:53 PM

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/geosights/geosights-smoky-mountain/#toggle-id-1

That’s great - thanks for the info!

And interestingly, I didn’t know Zion had a coal seam fire. But apparently out of the 8 active coal seam fires, the Zionz National Bank Park one was the only one the Bureau of Reclamation was able to successfully extinguish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Iceaxe

08-16-2018, 04:41 PM

99.99% of the time they extinguish a coal seam fire by covering it with dirt. The problem is 50 years later they uncover the seam and the minute it hits oxygen it will reignite.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

Sombeech

08-16-2018, 08:26 PM

Federal agency issues proposals for downsized Utah monuments

Some of these quotes:
saying its preference for one of the sites would be the "least restrictive to energy and mining development."

I want to know, who actually said this, and what was the phrase said, exactly? Irresponsible article authors write this crap up and they know it isn't true, and this is what the public grabs hold of.

There is no way to walk this back. And it's a lie.

rockgremlin

08-16-2018, 08:37 PM

Some of these quotes:
saying its preference for one of the sites would be the "least restrictive to energy and mining development."

I want to know, who actually said this, and what was the phrase said, exactly? Irresponsible article authors write this crap up and they know it isn't true, and this is what the public grabs hold of.

There is no way to walk this back. And it's a lie.

Yup. Unfortunately we live in a wondrous age where we have access to vast, almost limitless knowledge. But most folks are too lazy to seek the truth -- much easier to believe the tripe that is passed off as "news," especially when said news has bold flashy headlines that can bolster one's political or ideological leanings.

Sad...

twotimer

08-16-2018, 08:42 PM

I don't think things like this are a real problem. It's just red meat for those that crave it.

November will show us how many truly have pinwheels spinning in their eyes.

Iceaxe

08-16-2018, 09:19 PM

November will show us how many truly have pinwheels spinning in their eyes.

Midterms have a habit of being over represented by the extreme ends of the spectrum. The middle has a bad habit of being lazy and skipping the midterms.

stefan

08-18-2018, 01:35 AM

Surprised by plan from his own BLM to unload land
inside Utah’s former Grand Staircase monument,
Interior boss cancels sale

The Interior Department has canceled a proposal from the Bureau of Land Management that would have allowed the sale of more than 1,600 acres inside the previous boundaries of southern Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

The department’s deputy secretary, David Bernhardt, sent a memo to BLM officials Friday, reversing part of a management plan for the 900,000 acres that President Donald Trump removed from monument status in December.

Top Interior officials say they were caught off guard by the BLM proposal.

Secretary Ryan Zinke, a former Montana congressman who has insisted that he opposes selling off public lands, read about the management plan in the news media.

“The secretary did not see the proposal before it went out and was not happy about it,” a senior Interior Department official said Friday afternoon.

The proposed management plan would allow large swaths of the former monument to be open to mining and drilling, and the preferred alternative identified 16 parcels that could be sold to private developers.

Among these parcels was one adjoining ranch property held by Utah lawmaker Mike Noel, a vocal leader in the campaign to reduce and block national monuments.

Noel, who handled real estate transactions for the BLM during his 22-year tenure with the agency, said he never asked the BLM to make that acreage available and that he is not interested in buying more property in Johnson Canyon, east of Kanab, where he holds extensive land and water rights.

...

rest of article
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/17/interior-secretary/

stefan

08-18-2018, 12:11 PM

Some of these quotes:
saying its preference for one of the sites would be the "least restrictive to energy and mining development."

I want to know, who actually said this, and what was the phrase said, exactly? Irresponsible article authors write this crap up and they know it isn't true, and this is what the public grabs hold of.

There is no way to walk this back. And it's a lie.

hey 'beech, you sound like the type to shoot first and ask questions later. friendly advice: maybe take some time to look into something before you shoot your mouth off?

the BLM wrote it in their executive summary (see image). Alternative D is the BLM's preferred management option.

90306

which you can find in this pdf

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/94706/154279/188896/_GSENM-KEPA__Executive_Summary-508_r.pdf

btw, when journalists (particularly the associated press) put something in quotes, you can assume they can back it up. your skepticism seems to get the better of you

Sombeech

08-18-2018, 06:19 PM

btw, when journalists (particularly the associated press) put something in quotes, you can assume they can back it up.

Like the "Trump peeing in the hotel room" and the "Trump said the N word 10 years ago" articles?

Still looking for those pieces to show up, but unfortunately those lies have ran 3 times around the world, without being backed up.

rockgremlin

08-18-2018, 07:01 PM

rest of article
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/17/interior-secretary/

Hmmm...I wonder if the parcels will be back up for sale again. Just seems odd that they would be cancelled all of a sudden.

They ought to just leave that area unavailable to development since promoting drilling or mining in those areas just generates negative press and it seems there's not enough money to make it worth it.

Iceaxe

08-18-2018, 10:29 PM

btw, when journalists (particularly the associated press) put something in quotes, you can assume they can back it up.

If only that were true, but unfortunately in this day and age it's not and often quotes are attributed to "unnamed sources". Which has led to #FakeNews. Anyone that takes for gospel what the press says, including the AP, is an idiot.

And the press has no one to blame for their loss of integrity but themselves. We reap what we sow.

According to a recent article in Forbes, reporters are near the bottom when it comes to trusted professions, right next door to lawyer and politician.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/04/americas-most-and-least-trusted-professions-infographic/

stefan

08-29-2018, 01:23 AM

saying its preference for one of the sites would be the "least restrictive to energy and mining development."I want to know, who actually said this, and what was the phrase said, exactly? Irresponsible article authors write this crap up and they know it isn't true, and this is what the public grabs hold of.

There is no way to walk this back. And it's a lie.

btw, when journalists (particularly the associated press) put something in quotes, you can assume they can back it up.

If only that were true, but unfortunately in this day and age it's not and often quotes are attributed to "unnamed sources". Which has led to #FakeNews. Anyone that takes for gospel what the press says, including the AP, is an idiot.

ice, irrespective of whether the source is a named or unnamed person or document, whenever a journalist is providing a direct quote in an article they should always be able to backup the attribution of the direct quote to a specific person or a document.

stefan

08-29-2018, 01:37 AM

With BLM headquarters likely to go West, Rep. Rob Bishop promotes Ogden as Utah's best host

One thing is certain under the major reorganization Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has in mind for the sprawling federal department he oversees: The Bureau of Land Management headquarters will move West, where nearly all the nation’s public land is concentrated.

Salt Lake City has been viewed as a logical host city, but now an up-and-coming city 40 miles to the north has emerged as a possible contender.
.
.
The exchange occurred at a roundtable hosted by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, whose congressional district includes Ogden. Combs laid out Zinke’s vision for making the BLM and other Interior agencies more responsive to Western communities associated with public lands.

“The goal is to reorganize by [distributing] power out … to where the problems are, where the facts are, the issues are on the ground,” Combs said. “The secretary wants all decision-making to be driven locally, so you see county commissioners, mayors and governors. You are at the forefront of everything that happens in your county, city and state.”
.
.
With Herbert inviting the BLM to put its headquarters in Utah, it appears state leaders no longer prioritize taking title to the public lands, a move that would evict the BLM from the state. Instead, leaders are embracing a less drastic goal of securing greater authority over how the BLM manages 23 million acres in Utah.

“This has potential to make Interior more efficient and more responsive to reflect more precisely what the people who live next to these public lands want to see take place,” Herbert said. “Secondly, it gives a chance to change the culture of the department.”

On paper, Salt Lake City would appear to be a more viable candidate than Ogden. The BLM’s state office is already in Utah’s capital city, which also sits at the junction of the Intermountain West’s two biggest freeways. And, Herbert noted, Salt Lake City has a major airport undergoing a $3.6 billion expansion.

But Bishop noted that Ogden has plenty of available federal office space and its own airport. Ogden hosts regional offices of the U.S. Forest Service and the IRS; Hill Air Force Base is nearby.
.
.

link to article
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/08/29/blm-ogden-heres-what/