Obama to declare Bears Ears National Monument in Utah

[accadacca]

President Barack Obama today will designate Bears Ears National Monument in southern Utah, according to Sen. Mike Lee's communications secretary.

"While Obama vacations in Hawaii, it appears the [White House] will announce an unwanted and unpopular monument designation in Utah at 4 p.m.," tweeted Conn Carroll, who then linked to several opinion pieces and news articles about the proposed Bears Ears National Monument.

Obama's move would come against the express wishes of Utah's state and federally elected leaders, who have vowed to repeal the designation.

There has been broad agreement that the Bears Ears region should be protected, but opinions diverge sharply over the extent of that protection and the mechanism for achieving it.

Elected San Juan County leaders have been nearly unanimous in their opposition to a monument, arguing it would stymie public access and disrupt traditional uses. Congressman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and many other state leaders claimed a monument "unilaterally" established through executive decree — under the 1906 Antiquities Act — would disenfranchise local sentiment and perpetuate conflict over use of public lands.

On the other hand, tribal officials elected to Navajo government posts supported or openly advocated the monument designation, arguing Utah leaders had their chance and failed to come up with a meaningful conservation plan. These officials — including Navajo Nation Council delegate Davis Filfred and former Ute Mountain Ute councilwoman Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk — say the designation is necessary to curb vandalism, looting and off-roading. Bears Ears' cultural treasures preserve an intact archaeological record dating back thousands of years and serve as a cultural touchstone for numerous indigenous communities.

An Obama designation raises the possibility that President-elect Donald Trump would be pressed to undo the monument. In early December, Bishop — chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and known for his opposition to federal oversight of public lands — met with Trump's transition team, asking the incoming president to consider revoking large-scale monuments that Obama designated over the objections of local leaders.

Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, sponsored a bill with Rep. Jason Chaffetz, also R-Utah, attempting to preserve critical lands in the Bears Ears area, and other parts of the state, without a monument designation. Opponents view the legislation as a giveaway to oil and gas interests and it was introduced too late for Congress to act.
While many residents of tourism-dependent Bluff supported the monument push, most in Blanding and Monticello have been steadfastly opposed.

In a Dec. 14 letter to the president, Blanding native Jami Bayles decried a proposed monument as "nothing but a Trojan Horse that will undoubtedly destroy this area" and discounted the pro-monument sentiments of tribal members living just outside Utah in three adjoining states.

"A National Monument should be an honor to an area, not a punishment — and it should not be done TO the residents, but rather WITH the residents," wrote Bayles, who works in student services at Utah State University-Eastern.

Brian Maffly covers public lands for The Salt Lake Tribune. Brian Maffly can be reached at bmaffly@sltrib.com or 801-257-8713. Twitter: @brianmaffly

More: http://www.hcn.org/articles/bears-ears-monument-gets-closer-to-reality

[accadacca]

[accadacca]

[uintafly]

Sweet!

[twotimer]

Huge area...they may have well called it the "Abajo Mountains Monument". I didn't look into it before today, but assumed that it would just cover the top end of Dark Canyon.

There's a lot of AWESOME backpacking and hiking in there, especially down by the river between Beef Basin and Dark Canyon. The road getting down to Fable Valley is quite rough...I wonder if they'll improve it? I hope not, as that area has a nice wilderness feel to it. It's usually quite sparse aside from the Sundance Trail.

I couldn't care less about possible oil, minerals and such...I just hope it isn't destroyed by too much visitation...just look at Coyote Gulch and the Escalante around Neon, all tore up.

[Scott P]

The road getting down to Fable Valley is quite rough...I wonder if they'll improve it?

Unlikely. If it's anything like the Grand Staircase, the opposite will be the case. Most of the roads there have become rougher, rather than improved.

PS, I don't know if the monument is the primary cause for the crowds at Neon and Coyote.

Coyote Gulch, Zion Narrows, and Buckskin/Paria all used to be perhaps the best known of the canyon hikesin Utah, but as soon as the Zion Narrows and Buckskin Paria became much more restrictive in the number of people that could go (permit system), visitation to Coyote Gulch skyrocketed.

[Iceaxe]

Get ready for the large crowds... Obama stuck a 'let's visit' bullseye on the area.

[Sombeech]

Sweet!

Is there a particular benefit to creating this National Monument? Is it going to stop, or curb some ongoing environmental destruction to the area that we are not aware of? (and that somehow Obama is aware of)

[twotimer]

Coyote Gulch, Zion Narrows, and Buckskin/Paria all used to be perhaps the best known of the canyon hikesin Utah, but as soon as the Zion Narrows and Buckskin Paria became much more restrictive in the number of people that could go (permit system), visitation to Coyote Gulch skyrocketed.

Yeah, I remember that, it was about the mid 90s...all of these things seemed to happen at the same time. With the exception of the Narrows and the Subway, Zion was a free for all.

Prior to that (the late 80s and early 90s, in my case) I would run into people from Europe (mostly Germany, it seemed) who would fly out, rent a car in Salt Lake and drive down for a touring extravaganza...those people aren't afraid to get away from the road, that's for sure. They all said the same thing...they saw pictures of the area and just had to come.

In regards to the roads around the Abajos...Sweet Alice, in particular...it appears that the Indians will be "managing" the new monument? If it were the county, I wouldn't expect much more than an occasional visit by a grader, which is what happens now. Perhaps I shouldn't expect the injuns to do much more than that, either.

[Scott P]

Get ready for the large crowds... Obama stuck a 'let's visit' bullseye on the area.

Isn't that what climb-utah does too?

[uintafly]

Is there a particular benefit to creating this National Monument? Is it going to stop, or curb some ongoing environmental destruction to the area that we are not aware of? (and that somehow Obama is aware of)

http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/site...arsThreats.pdf

[Iceaxe]

Isn't that what climb-utah does too?

True... but I'm a pee shooter when it comes to targeting and a National Monument designation is an atomic bomb.

[Sombeech]

http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/site...arsThreats.pdf

So those areas have oil drilling currently, and they will pack up and leave the area now?

Interesting.

[uintafly]

So those areas have oil drilling currently, and they will pack up and leave the area now?

Interesting.

I think you and I have different definitions of threats. Just because it isn't happening right now, doesn't mean there isn't a threat of it happening in the coming years. No one is currently trying to break into my house. But I still have locks on my doors.

[CanyonHawks]

I'm disappointed that the Bears Ears area was designated a national monument yesterday. This greatly increases the potential for the area to be loved to death and be the victim of ignorant tourists. I dearly love this area. I've hiked, backpacked, and descended many canyons in the area, I've explored the area on foot, in my truck, and on my ATV. I cut wood there for firewood. I stood on the top of one of the Bears Ears just a few months ago and watched the sunset. I seldom have seen many people there. That will be a thing of the past.

The proclamation establishes it as a monument but it will continue to be maintained by the same organizations (Forest Service and BLM) that were assigned to maintain it before the monument designation. The big difference is that it now publicizes the area and based on what has happened with other monuments that in turn increases visitation dramatically.

With increased visitation come more people traipsing where they should not, picking up and pocketing things (pottery, arrowheads, etc.) they should not, climbing where they should not, and leaving more garbage behind. I see more mis-management of the area - not improved management.

I see the following article as typical of what happens when the National Monument "target" gets assigned to an area - especially since there is never sufficient funding to truly "protect" and even more so because the monument is huge so it is simply too large and too remote to be policed and managed in a practical manner. Those who thought they were protecting the land have, in my opinion, doomed it to more damage and looting and along the way negatively impacted the lives and livelihoods of those who live in the area.

I see no winners in this proclamation except the recreation industry and a few leaders who will receive praise and gain from their "coup". Even those who tout the "tribal involvement" will come to understand that the tribal commissions role will only be that of suggestion and not management as they were promised.

https://psmag.com/the-heist-how-visi...db1#.9donsj8hf

[CanyonHawks]

Actually the "indians" will not be managing it. Here is the statement regarding that direct from the BLM' : "Honoring tribal expertise and traditional and historical knowledge, a Bears Ears Commission has been created that will enable tribes to share information and advice with federal land managers. While tribal input will be carefully and fully considered during such planning and management, the BLM and USFS retain ultimate authority over the monument."
https://www.blm.gov/programs/nationa...ars/fast-facts

So input yes, management no - I know many in the Tribes thought they would get management and supported it for that reason. Won't be the first time the Government has made promises to the "indians" and then wiggled out of it.

[Brian in SLC]

Is there a particular benefit to creating this National Monument? Is it going to stop, or curb some ongoing environmental destruction to the area that we are not aware of? (and that somehow Obama is aware of)

Somehow? Did you read any of Rep Rob Bishop's proposed bill? Control of issuing oil and gas leases would have been turned over to the state of Utah is what I dimly recall.

I think the benefit was protection of the resource from potential future extraction industries.

Dunno. Can't decide if I was for or against this designation. Will be comparable to the Escalante situation, methinks.

I think we can all remember the "good ol' days" when our trailheads weren't as crowded. Increases in park visitation in Zion(s) has been staggering.

What will this do? I'm not sure. Anyone have any numbers on the impact to visitation pre and post monument in the Escalante?

As someone who recreates in these areas, I note that my experience pre and post monument status in the Escalante really hasn't changed much. Still the same ol' crowds in Peekaboo, Spooky. A few more vehicles parked at the Egypt trailhead. Some of that increase could be just from the increase in people canyoneering too.

According to the Great Old Broads website:

Again, if we look at Escalante as an example, a 2014 Headwaters Economics study found that the communities adjacent to GSENM experienced strong growth after the designation in 1996. That growth is in local health care and the tourism sector, which includes accommodations, food, arts, entertainment, and recreation. Overall wages for the region have climbed from $40.7 million to $61 million since 2001, and four key economic indicators—population, employment, personal income, and per capita income—all rose since the monument designation.

Will this follow for the towns bordering the Bears Ears? Will Fry Canyon Lodge re-open to serve that incredibly average to poor burger? Ha ha.

How will this effect Freeze fest?

Will Indian Creek get any more crowded with Colorado climbers?

What is interesting and somewhat historical, for climbers, is, that language in the designation referred specifically to rock climbing as a recognized activity. Canyoneering too! Wild times. We're the real deal now!

The area contains numerous objects of historic and of scientific interest, and it provides world class outdoor recreation opportunities, including rock climbing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, canyoneering, whitewater rafting, mountain biking, and horseback riding.

[jman]

What will this do? I'm not sure. Anyone have any numbers on the impact to visitation pre and post monument in the Escalante?

As someone who recreates in these areas, I note that my experience pre and post monument status in the Escalante really hasn't changed much. Still the same ol' crowds in Peekaboo, Spooky. A few more vehicles parked at the Egypt trailhead. Some of that increase could be just from the increase in people canyoneering too.

I'm in the same boat as you Brian with my pre and post experiences with GSENM.

In fact, I did email the BLM in Escalante last night (due to a ongoing Facebook discussion) to specifically ask for those numbers as my google searching can't find anything reliable.

I'll report back if I get a response from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scott P]

Visitation has increased in the Grand Staircase, but from what I have seen, no more than in other non-monument areas. In fact, visitation seems to have increased a lot less at Grand Staircase than many non-monument areas such as the San Rafael Swell, Robbers Roost, or North Wash, for example.

Guidebooks and the internet have had more of an impact in increasing visitation in the Grand Staircase than the monument has, at least in the areas far from the paved roads.

The biggest problem I see with the monument is that while the president declares the monument, congress funds it. I don't see congress doing much in this regard. So there may be a big monument, but if it isn't funded, I wonder what will become of it?

[kiwi_outdoors]

unfunded = very few rangers, no new site improvements (potties, campsites, signage etc) - its ok if they don't close any 2-rack access or similar roads. As older (65 years) hikers my wife and I don't do 17 mile round trips days any more, we would like to still have rough road access to trailheads.