Moultrie Products
Bears Ear and GS-E National Monuments
Community
Contributors to this thread:
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
Michael 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
slade 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
slade 05-Dec-17
Michael 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
Shuteye 05-Dec-17
TD 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
bad karma 05-Dec-17
HDE 05-Dec-17
Michael 05-Dec-17
BowSniper 05-Dec-17
HDE 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 05-Dec-17
elkmtngear 05-Dec-17
bad karma 05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 05-Dec-17
TD 05-Dec-17
slade 05-Dec-17
Michael 05-Dec-17
HDE 05-Dec-17
HDE 05-Dec-17
bigeasygator 05-Dec-17
HDE 05-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
South Farm 06-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 06-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
Shuteye 06-Dec-17
HDE 06-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 06-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
Solo 06-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 06-Dec-17
Solo 06-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
HDE 06-Dec-17
Gray Ghost 06-Dec-17
Annony Mouse 06-Dec-17
Spike Bull 07-Dec-17
Pig Doc 07-Dec-17
bad karma 07-Dec-17
bigeasygator 07-Dec-17
JTV 07-Dec-17
Grey Ghost 07-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 07-Dec-17
HDE 07-Dec-17
Bowfreak 07-Dec-17
slade 07-Dec-17
Annony Mouse 07-Dec-17
Grey Ghost 07-Dec-17
HDE 07-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 08-Dec-17
Grey Ghost 09-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 09-Dec-17
Grey Ghost 09-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 09-Dec-17
Grey Ghost 10-Dec-17
BowSniper 10-Dec-17
NvaGvUp 10-Dec-17
Grey Ghost 10-Dec-17
From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
Seemed to be generating a lot of discussion on an unrelated thread, so thought I'd start one to keep the discussion going here. Idealogically, from a sportsmen's perspective, I cringe when we roll back protections on our public land. Will be interesting to see if it stands up to a legal challenge as it seems as though only Congress has the power to dial back the designation.

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
BEG,

That which can be done by Executive Order can also be undone by Executive Order.

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
Thanks BEG.

I cringe too. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and fake news about national monuments WRT sportsman's opportunities. Some people actually think you can't hunt or fish on these lands, as we saw on the other thread.

Hopefully we can dispel some of that ignorance, here.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17
National Monuments are not created by Executive Order. They are created by Presidential proclamation, a power granted to the President by the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act states:

"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected"

The Antiquities Act says nothing about whether presidents have the power to revoke national monument designations of their predecessors.

From: Michael
05-Dec-17
“The President Stole Your Land.” Per Patagonia web site.

Correct me if I am wrong but how did he steal our land? Isn’t it still BLM and National Forest land? That is our land as well.

What were Obama’s intentions? Would the land eventually end up being a national park?

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
Kyle,

While I sympathize with your struggles to repair the "drinker" on monument lands, do you think your efforts would be any easier if there was an oil drilling operation on those lands, for example? Would the drinker even be necessary?

This year, I spent the better part of August and September scouting and hunting mountain goats in a designated national wilderness area. The complete lack of development, roads, vehicles, and people in that area is what made that hunt so very special for me. I'm sure you've felt the same way on some of your adventures.

Rolling back protections on public lands does nothing to secure those type experiences for any of us, or for future generations.

Matt

From: slade
05-Dec-17
Thank god for President Trump, giving back land to state of Utah, the rightful owners.

Not surprised the bowlibs and closet democrat are whining ....

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
Michael,

It's Patagonia, one of the suppliers to the self-anointed elitist bunny hugger crowd.

eff them!

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17
Slade, President Trump did not give federal land to the state of Utah. He rolled back the protections of it being a National Monument, opening it up to exploitation. Seeing as a Utah has sold off 50% of the state lands it has ever owned (not quite as bad as the 99.9% of state lands Nevada has sold off), thank god it still stays in the hands of the public.

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
"Thank god for President Trump, giving back land to state of Utah, the rightful owners.

Exactly where did Trump do that, Slade? Perhaps you should do a little reading on the subject before making such claims.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
BEG,

OK, then let me put it this way:

That which can be done by 'Presidential Proclamation' can also be undone by Presidential Proclamation.

Unless you believe that some Presidents are more equal than other Presidents and therefore have more Constitutional powers than other Presidents, that is.

To believe otherwise would be equivalent to believing the laughable BS posted on the "Dick" thread which claimed Congress could not repeal a law a previous Congress had passed.

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17
According to you, Kyle. It's going to be up to the courts to decide whether that's actually the case.

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
BEG,

You conveniently ignored the point of my question, didn't you?

Do you or do you not believe some Presidents are more equal than others and therefore can make policy which subsequent Presidents do not have the power to overturn?

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
For me it's not so much a matter of authority to roll back monument designations, but rather a matter of who benefits from doing so?

It's certainly not sportsmen who will benefit.

Matt

From: slade
05-Dec-17
my bad, I meant control of these lands would be more local, not governed by a few browshirts in DC.

From: Michael
05-Dec-17
Just thought you guys would want to know. 21 points to draw a NR San Juan bull archery tag per Gohunt. 2 tags were given out.

For deer 1 tag is given for NR Archery buck deer. That tag was a random tag that went to a 13 point holder.

That was for the 2016 season.

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
You didn't pose that in the form of the question. You made a statement. I believe President's are equal in the powers that are granted to them, and the Antiquities Act seems to be pretty clear related to what power is granted to the President. He has the power to create National Monuments. The Antiquities Act says nothing about rescission. The legal community seems split on what powers the president has in this regard.

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17
More local? They'll still be managed by the same Federal agencies as far as I can tell (BLM and USFS). What makes it more local?

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
Matt,

1. Sportsmen do NOT benefit from the creation of national monument designations.

2. These lands are owned by ALL Americans, not just the Patagonia and North Face elitists.

When you discuss designated wilderness areas, you're also talking about an incredibly difficult challenge state wildlife agencies are faced with in managing wildlife on their states' properties in those areas.

It's nice that the folks with the Guicci backpacks and Patagonia and North Face gear can go into the wilderness and never see any sign of man.

But that also means state agencies and NGOs are therefore not allowed to access drinkers for maintenence which were built in those areas years before they became wilderness and as a result, wildlife which are dependent on those drinkers DIE!

Nor are they allowed to use 'mechainized equipment,' esp. helicopters, to fly into the wilderness to protect and save wildlife in the event of a disease outbreak, fire, etc.

We need to raise the state agencies' ability to manage wildlife in wilderness and on all public lands to the same level of importance as your ability to wander through wilderness while seeing no sign man has ever been there.

From: Shuteye
05-Dec-17
The liberals are saying the land will be criss crossed with oil pipe lines. There ain't any oil or gas on these lands to amount to anything. The land is only a few acres smaller than the state of Delaware.

From: TD
05-Dec-17
By designating the land Monument status it literally makes it one step away from National Park status and removes any and all local public input as to how it is to be managed, multiple use or any use at all. Management falls under the National Park Service. Forest Service and BLM all are required to at least accept public input and are to lend extra weight to LOCAL public input.

They can suspend hunting or any activity, just as it is in many National Parks, with the wave of a Patagonian hand. Just like that.

It is a method used to gain total unfettered federal control over public land, used to bypass any (especially local) objections or preferences to public land management. The land given that status in this case far exceeded what was needed for protections of these "monuments". It was a federal land/power/control grab of grand proportions, a progressive anti-everything wet dream.

05-Dec-17
I'll take a Wilderness or Monument hunt over all others. BLM and Forest Service has too many lazy folks with ATVs and private land takes the challenge out of it. Give me a horse and a wilderness area and I'll be fine.

Without the Monument designation you end up with situations like the Roan Plateau/Piceance Basin in Colorado or the Powder River Basin in Wyoming when a extraction boom hits. Kiss the herds goodbye.

Regardless of who owns property (private, state, federal), I think that managing a State's wildlife should be handled by that State's DOW with no exceptions. Right now, state DOWs handle FS and BLM including most monuments and recreation areas and all Wilderness areas. The Feds control the National Parks, some monuments and some wildlife areas. State DOWs should manage all wildlife.

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
LHCA,

You know not of what you post.

But then, we aleady knew that.

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
Kyle,

We need to raise the state agencies ability to manage wildlife in wilderness and all public lands to the same level of importance as your ability to wander through wilderness while seeing no sign man has ever been there.

We agree there. At least to the extent that the native wildlife truly needs the management efforts. In my ideal wilderness, the animals don't need man-made "drinkers" that require human maintenance, nor do they need roads to those drinkers, or to any other man-made structure for that matter. In true wilderness areas, the animals do pretty well on their own, from my experience.

I still don't see how that relates to Trumps monument roll-backs in Utah. Wildlife management and regulation don't change in this deal. The only thing that changes is way the land can be used for commercial purposes. Most of which will not benefit wildlife or sportsmen.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17
Well said, GG. Though not all wilderness areas are ideal, so I certainly understand the need to balance wildlife management needs with access/protection.

Like most on here, I have never been to either Monument (though I have applied for sheep tags in the Grand Staircase-Escalante) and I know nothing of the real extractive potential of the resources on the land. As I see it, this move has really served only to open up the Monuments to development, which is why I don’t support the move — but that’s because my initial inclination is to leave wild places wild.

Can someone tell me how this move benefits sportsmen?

From: bad karma
05-Dec-17
Kyle already did.

05-Dec-17
NvaGvUp,

I know exactly what I'm talking about. What do you think happened to the RP, PB, and PRB herds? You don't like hunting a wilderness area on a horse? You think the feebs should manage wildlife?

I know the problem. You're a shooter that only hunts artificial water holes.

Stop being a clown. You'll feel a lot better about yourself.

From: HDE
05-Dec-17
BEG - "local" means district offices. However, those district offices take directive from D.C.

Although the Antiquities Act doesn't say a President has the right to reduce or rescind, it doesn't say they can't do it either. This will go to the SCOTUS. A little federal judge won't have much to do with it long term.

I still have to wonder why pump units, production tanks, and separators are not currently scattered all over the BE's monumemt area before it was designated?

This is what happens when interest groups try to backdoor special privilege and don't use the channels everyone else does...

From: Michael
05-Dec-17
TD said it well. For Obama to make it a monument there had to be a reason. That reason could be to put it closer to being a National Park.

As my post above pointed out. For those that don’t know Bears Ear is in the San Juan unit. 380+ bulls can come out of there. 1.3 mil acres is a pretty good size chunk of land.

If the Bears Ear NM turned into a National Park how would that benefit sportsman with a dream of shooting an elk that big.

Did Trump have sportsman in mind when he reversed this? Time will tell.

From: BowSniper
05-Dec-17
Why the sudden hysteria about "rolling back protections" on these two lands?? For some 200 years they had no special protections. It wasn't until Dec 2016 that Obama gave these two places special status/protections. And now one year later Trump is just trying to put them back to the way they had always been.

Why the panic NOW over some perceived lack of protections on these lands, when you didn't have those same fears for your entire adult lives PRIOR TO the Obama change in Dec 2016?? A year ago you this didn't seem to bother anyone at all. But just going back to the way they always were is suddenly an egregious environmental disaster??

From: HDE
05-Dec-17
I have been bowhunting the San Juan unit the last few years OTC and have seen those big bulls up close and personal. As far as NP status goes, it can be set up to continue to allow hunting - Valles Caldera in NM is now a NP that allows hunting - not saying that I want it to go to a NP.

The tribal coalition should've left well enough alone. They caused this mess more than they realize...

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
HDE, weren’t these already managed by district offices? Or did that change?

bk, I’m asking specifically with respect to these two monuments, not generally speaking. I understand Kyle’s point and largely agree with it - but it only holds water if there are specific challenges related to managing the wildlife on these two monuments that are being addressed. Are, for example, there specific drinkers on these two monuments that are now accessible? How have the wildlife herds done in the area? The link to the Utah DWR report on the San Juan indicates that they believe rolling back protections and changing ownership/management could impact habitat and prevent the reaching of population objectives.

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17
HDE, Valles Calderas is a National Preserve, not a National Park. National Preserves allow for extractive activities (including hunting, fishing, logging, etc). I believe National Parks do not.

From: Gray Ghost
05-Dec-17
"As my post above pointed out. For those that don’t know Bears Ear is in the San Juan unit. 380+ bulls can come out of there. 1.3 mil acres is a pretty good size chunk of land."

And how do you think your chances of hunting that land changed with this decision? Did hunting regulations change? Will they offer more tags? Will more ground be accessible for the average DIY hunters?

Matt

From: elkmtngear
05-Dec-17
Fed Control under the Obama administration could have easily been a foot in the door to establish a Wolf population in Utah. Not as worried about it under this administration, but who knows what could happen down the line.

From: bad karma
05-Dec-17
Left Hand Clueless Alleged Archer: Kyle is a guy who has finished the Western States 100 eleven times. You don't have a freaking clue about what you are talking about here. Again, and habitually.

From: NvaGvUp
05-Dec-17
Matt,

''We agree there. At least to the extent that the native wildlife truly needs the management efforts. In my ideal wilderness, the animals don't need man-made "drinkers" that require human maintenance, nor do they need roads to those drinkers, or to any other man-made structure for that matter. In true wilderness areas, the animals do pretty well on their own, from my experience. "

That's incedibly uninformed nonsense!

With 25+ MILLION people living in SoCal, the water table has been sucked down to the point where the ground water in the CA Desert which used to feed natural seeps and springs no longer exists!

Were it not for the drinkers NGOs build, there would be precious little water, if any, available for wildlife.

Give it up, my friend, because you clearly have no clue about the facts.

From: TD
05-Dec-17
These lands were always managed with public input mandatory. They are currently managed at the whim of the National Park Service to do as they see fit.

I don't know where you live, but I can't imagine you'd think it right nor fair to have your say in how your public lands were managed taken away from you. And taken away by people who have a history of screwing over residents around those lands.

Never ceases to amaze me how differently people view the way things should work where they live..... then go on to tell others how things should be where others live. Things that greatly effect those who live and work there for generations and have little to no effect on those who do not.

From: slade
05-Dec-17
MAGA

From: Michael
05-Dec-17

Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Matt,

“And how do you think your chances of hunting that land changed with this decision? Did hunting regulations change? Will they offer more tags? Will more ground be accessible for the average DIY hunters?”

My chances are slim to none per the attached photo. I think it would be a fun hunt to do a spike hunt to just be there. However I doubt I would ever do that.

I don’t have 2017 numbers but you can see tag numbers prior to being a NM.

It is my understanding that the NM lands were BLM and National Forest land prior to being a NM. So I don’t see any public lands added or loss.

Being a NM under BLM watch can be beneficial to sportsman. Under National parks not so much. Like TD said. Being a NM puts it one step closer to being a National Park.

Did Trump help sportsman yesterday? I believe time will tell. If these lands are not sold off I can’t see how it hurts sportsman.

From: HDE
05-Dec-17
BEG - yes they have always been managed by local district offices, hence my post of saying local means district offices.

No, VC became NP status a year or so ago. It is no longer a preserve.

From: HDE
05-Dec-17
The only way they can be sold off is for Congress to do a land swap with existing private to give up the acreage to be sold by that "new" land owner.

These lands are just as safe today as they were yesterday. As a NM, I question just how long it would've stayed in a state of use the way we know it today.

Both were created politically, nothing more. One because of coal reserves and an energy hating administration. The other was pushed by a coalition of 5 tribes and then 'earth first' groups jumped on board.

From: bigeasygator
05-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
Agreed with your comment around being handled by the local office, HDE. Slade made the comment that this would be changing.

Valles Calderas is a National Preserve. The management changed a few years ago - moving from the Valles Calderas Trust to the National Park Service, but its designation did not change. It remained a Preserve. The NPS manages most NM as well.

From: HDE
05-Dec-17
My mistake. You are correct about the VC, it was transferred to the park service for management and funding. I recall that happening now.

The trust was created as 'an experiment on public land management' to see if it could be self sustaining.

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
"Give it up, my friend, because you clearly have no clue about the facts."

Kyle,

With all due respect, can we please get away from your pet "drinker" issue? if the desert has become so dry that it no longer supports the wildlife naturally, without man's intervention, then I don't consider that true wilderness. When I hear about man-made "drinkers", I think of cattle, not wildlife. And I consider your efforts more of a mercy mission than wildlife management.

And, again, I fail to see how your "drinker" anecdote relates to the topic. I'm pretty sure the land in question doesn't suffer from over-development like So Cal. Nor does the wildlife need the level of human support that you are talking about.

Matt

From: South Farm
06-Dec-17
I don't know enough about Bears Ears particularly to comment, but the one thing that does strike me is that EVERY SINGLE TIME any controversy arises over public land use there will be a local native american population screaming that tree, rock, river, lake, whatever, is "sacred". EVERYTHING is "sacred" to them. I think the government should ask for a list detailing all sites considered "sacred" so we can avoid any unnecessary squabbling, at least over that fact. I mean in reality isn't the entire earth sacred to us all?!? Seems ludicrous to cry "sacred" over every political issue..

From: NvaGvUp
06-Dec-17
Matt,

Drinkers restore what man had taken away.

Yet you have a problem with that?

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
Kyle,

I have no problem with that, and I admire your efforts.

But, when man has to provide a basic necessity like water in order for animals to survive, those animals are no longer wildlife, but rather livestock, IMO. It's sad that it's come down to that for sheep in the deserts of CA, but that's not the normal level of wildlife management that we see elsewhere in the country, especially in wilderness areas.

Matt

From: Shuteye
06-Dec-17
The bottom line is Trump just undid what Obama did just before he left office. I don't think Obama had hunters in mind.

From: HDE
06-Dec-17
Obama made BE's because of cultural use. The 5 tribes formed a coalition for numbers of names on a petition. Acting alone, it would not have any teeth but as a group it showed "bona-fide" ancestral ties and lineage for sustaining and protecting a way of life, in essence, preserving their belief system.

The enviros joined knowing they could reduce human impact and keep some activity out, more activity long term. They would get what they wanted - earth first.

It was a very political ambition for special use by one group one day...

From: NvaGvUp
06-Dec-17
Matt,

It's not 'normal' in states that have adequate natural water. But states in the Desert Southwest have very little natural water and man has eliminated much of what was originally there.

To claim wildlife which dares to drink water that man has taken away with water other men have restored somehow makes them 'not wild' is beyond the absurd.

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
"To claim wildlife which dares to drink water that man has taken away with water other men have restored somehow makes them 'not wild' is beyond the absurd."

Kyle,

To me, what's absurd is the notion that animals who rely on man's support for basic necessities, like water, are somehow "wild".

Its equally absurd to me that someone who recognizes that that support is necessary due to man's development and consumption of natural resources, but supports decisions that make human development/consumption easier on millions of acres of land.

Matt

From: Solo
06-Dec-17
Sheesh GG. Animals have needs just like people do. You're caught up in the mentality that wild animals rule the wild. It may seem that way to you, but in reality, man rules the earth....even the wild parts. In any 'wild' cases, it's only that we just ain't got there yet and have made the efforts to dominate it.

Read this carefully.... Genesis 1:28 --- God blessed them (that's us) and said to them (us again), "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

If you don't get that, then I'd have to say that it explains a lot about some of your perspectives.

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
Solo,

Thanks for the religious perspective.

For me, "ruling over every creature", as the bible commands, includes providing land where they can live without man's intervention. Trump's decision does nothing to promote that.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
06-Dec-17
Matt,

You've never seen me supporting 'evil development' on public land and you never will.

From: Solo
06-Dec-17
GG, it's not a 'command'. It's a revelation of who we are. We rule wherever we go on this earth. No where were we 'commanded' to rule with some heartless iron hand to punish those creatures we have charge over. To the contrary, actually.

We give them water where needed because we love them. And what you're really saying here by proclaiming your 'wild animal' classification, is that we should maintain access to these lands to help these creatures.

Call it 'religious' all you want to. It ain't 'religious'. It's simply reality. Some people 'get it' sooner and some later. And some never do.

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
"You've never seen me supporting 'evil development' on public land and you never will."

I know that about you, Kyle, and I respect it. That's why I question you when you don't exhibit that behavior.

You may not care about my opinion. That's certainly your prerogative, but not my wish.

Matt

From: HDE
06-Dec-17
"...providing land where they can live without man's intervention."

No, that's not what that means. Not at all.

From: Gray Ghost
06-Dec-17
Solo,

Honestly, I think you and I are arguing the same side of this topic. If not, my apologies for not understanding your point.

Matt

From: Annony Mouse
06-Dec-17

Annony Mouse's Link
A slight digression (link), but quite relevant as to dealing with our lands and bureaucracy at the federal level.

07-Dec-17
I have posted numerous times about how the f&w is out of control, specifically the development of the Silvio O. Conti and Umbagog wildlife refuges being expanded in my area, and the illegalities, even outright lies, as they treat taxpaying citizens like occupiers on their own land.

People wont notice or care until it is way too late.

From: Pig Doc
07-Dec-17
Interesting and largely respectful debate on this topic - refreshing for the CF. Although I hunt the west, I'm not from there, and am learning from the discourse. Thanks.

From: bad karma
07-Dec-17
I fail to see the difference between sheep drinking at a spring, or drinking at a guzzler. Either way, they are at a water source when thirsty. Whether Man or God put it there, it makes no difference.

From: bigeasygator
07-Dec-17

bigeasygator's Link
As always, Steve Rinella brings a measured, reasonable, and thoughtful response on the issue. He’s such a tremendous ambassador for sportsmen.

From: JTV
07-Dec-17
the sky isnt falling, and there are more threats to land, habitat and hunting than trying to push this off as a bad move ...... all, this does is move back the land holdings to where they were ..... I dont trust the Federal Park System and their management one bit ....

From: Grey Ghost
07-Dec-17
I don't think anyone implied the "sky is falling".

Trump's decision really didn't change who manages the land in question. A combination of federal departments still have that authority.

What changed is the how the land can be used, mostly for commercial purposes. I still maintain that was not in the best interest of the wildlife, or sportsmen.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
07-Dec-17
Matt,

"That's why I question you when you don't exhibit that behavior.".

I do and that's your problem.

You believe your being able to trek through the wilderness in pristine solitude is more important than having the abundant and healthy herds of wildlife that lived in those areas before man came on the scene return to their former abundance.

From: HDE
07-Dec-17
One more time: the land could be used that way before a designation. Hydrocarbons did not magically migrate to the area when they heard the designation happened. There has been some mining in the past, but only by private claim and small at that.

Still waiting for an explanation as to why drilling and production, mining, and logging has not been done before on a large scale...

From: Bowfreak
07-Dec-17
Does anyone find it a little egotistical that those who are for "public lands" are only for public lands being used for recreation they find suitable? Are ranchers, timber companies and oil and gas companies not made up of those that have the very same rights to public land as I or anyone posting on this thread?

I believe in beneficial use of our public land and a big tent idea. I believe it is there for bird watcher, hunters, fishermen, ghost hunters, storm chasers and God forbid.....industry. I heard Ryan Callaghan speaking about this today on a BowJunky podcast. He was trying to walk the fence but was obviously troubled by this action. He mentioned that 2.8 million people chimed in (I assume it was public comment) and they were opposed to this. That sounds like a lot but that is less than 1% of the US population. This means that >99% of the US population is completely indifferent or ignorant of this action.

I don't care either way as right now it is going to be mostly BLM and NF so until something changes, we have access to hunt it STILL. Remember....elections have consequences and all of you lefties need to get used to it for the next 8 years. I know I choked on every Obama directive and stroke of the pen for 8 years and the reason was because he WON.

From: slade
07-Dec-17
For the bowlibs and easily duped Closest Democrat...

December 7, 2017 Utah 'Monument' Was a Reward to a Clinton Donor By Daniel John Sobieski

The shrinking in size of two national monuments in Utah by President Trump through executive order was a long overdue rebuke to federal land grabs that have enabled federal control of vast swaths of American land, particularly in the West. As the New York Times noted in 2016:

The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. In some states, including Oregon, Utah and Nevada, the majority of land is owned by the federal government. Of course, it used to own nearly all of it….

East of the Mississippi… the federal government owns only 4 percent of land.

Part of that discrepancy is due to the vagaries of the Western expansion into the sparely populated frontier. Part of it is due to the desires of environmentalists to turn America into a save-the-earth postcard -- take pictures and don’t touch. President Trump, who has unlocked much of America’s resources that were formerly held hostage by greenies and others, has decided to return to the people of Utah control of and decision-making power over the land of Utah, so you no longer need permission from a Beltway bureaucrat to pick up a rock and move it one foot to the left:

President Trump signed two proclamations Monday that shrink federally protected lands in Utah by about 2 million acres -- the largest rollback of national monument designations in history.

The Bears Ears National Monument will shrink 85% to 201,876 acres, and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will be cut by 39% to 1 million acres…

Trump said previous presidents overstepped their authority in declaring vast tracts of western lands off-limits, abusing the "purpose, spirit and intent" of a 1906 law known as the Antiquities Act. That law requires presidents to limit the monument designation to "the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."

"These abuses of the Antiquities Act give enormous power to faraway bureaucrats at the expense of the people who actually live here, work here, and make this place their home," Trump said in Salt Lake City Monday.

One of those presidents was one William Jefferson Clinton. Although the Trump orders only refer to lifting restrictions on motorized vehicles and grazing rights, much of the land involved is energy-rich and was put off limits by President Clinton to deprive Americans access to those resources and to reward a political donor.

A large part of America’s energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced back to September 18, 1996, when Hillary's co-president hubby Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument:

President Clinton officially set aside 1.7 million acres of Utah canyon lands Wednesday as a national monument, with some concessions to Utah authorities who complained the move would stunt the local economy and block a job-generating coal mine.

Standing against the sweeping backdrop of the Grand Canyon, Clinton declared that in creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument "we are keeping faith with the future... On this remarkable site, God's handiwork is everywhere."

But officials trod carefully around the issue of the planned coal mine, which was to be dug by Andalex Resources, a Dutch company, on a leased site on the Kaiparowits Plateau, considered one of the new monument's most remote and valuable sites. Under current plans, 50% of the coal mined from the plateau would be exported from the Port of Los Angeles.

In his remarks, Clinton implied that he intended to block the mine, which some have said could produce high quality coal with a value of $1 trillion.

So why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state. The state already had six national monuments, two national recreation areas, and all or part of five national forests. Three-quarters of Utah was in already in federal hands.

It was sold as a move to protect the environment. At the time the Clintons were worried that Ralph Nader’s presence on the ballot in a few Western states would draw green votes from Clinton in a race that promised to be close after the GOP retook Congress two years earlier.

Bill Clinton's unilateral land grab in Utah declaring 1.7 million acres a national monument and placing off-limits to an energy starved United States up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion that could have been mined with minimal surface impact was in fact a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

James Riady was the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. Young James was found guilty of and paid a multi-million dollar fine for funneling more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run. Connect the dots. Riady’s relationship between the Clintons, would be long and corrupt, even extending to donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of clean-burning coal. Who owned and controlled the second-largest deposit in the world? The Indonesian Lippo Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of Kalamantan.

The Utah reserve contains the kind of low-sulfur, low-ash, and therefore low-polluting coal the likes of which can be found in only a couple of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.

“The mother of all land grabs,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said at the time. Hatch has called what was designated as the Grande Staircase of the Escalante National Monument the “Saudi Arabia of coal.”

When Clinton signed the proclamation, he promised to exchange other federal lands for the land that was taken. Hatch said a fair exchange was impossible, since no other land in Utah had a trillion dollars worth of clean coal.

Rep. James Hansen (R-UT) pointed out that a large portion of the coal-rich Kaiparowits plateau within the monument belonged to the schoolchildren of Utah. When Utah became a state in 1896, about 220,000 acres were set aside to benefit the schools of Utah. Upon the state's founding, a trust fund was created to collect and hold directly for the benefit of the state schools all the revenues generated from developing this land.

Margaret Bird, trust officer for the fund, said that because the land will not be developed, the schoolchildren of Utah stood to lose as much as $1 billion over the next 50 years. Phyllis Sorensen, head of the Utah chapter of the National Education Association, called Clinton's action "felonious assault," charging that "they are stealing from the schoolchildren of Utah." Stealing from children to reward Indonesian billionaire donors is a move typical of the Clintons.

Before there was the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation, and the putting up of American national security for sale in the Uranium One deal with Russia, there was Bill Clinton creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, a monument to Bill and Hillary’s monumental corruption.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces

Typical democrats- let them eat cake.

From: Annony Mouse
07-Dec-17

From: Grey Ghost
07-Dec-17
"You believe your being able to trek through the wilderness in pristine solitude is more important than having the abundant and healthy herds of wildlife that lived in those areas before man came on the scene return to their former abundance."

The pristine solitude I trekked thru for almost 2 months last fall didn't need "drinkers" for healthy herds of wildlife. The wildlife was doing fine without any support from man...other than undisturbed land.

Matt

From: HDE
07-Dec-17
Lots of oil and gas guys out west hunt and fish. A lot.

From: NvaGvUp
08-Dec-17
"The pristine solitude I trekked thru for almost 2 months last fall didn't need "drinkers" for healthy herds of wildlife. The wildlife was doing fine without any support from man...other than undisturbed land. "

And I'd bet the farm you were not hiking in the arid Desert Southwest.

Nor do you know what to compare the wildlife you saw to what existed prior to the wilderness designations.

I spent all day today at the CA WSF 'Sheep Summit,' which I started in 2006. Today was the 22nd time we've met.

Present were two dozen wildlife professionals from CA DFW, the BLM, the USFS and the NPS. These professionals ALL agreed there were serious problems with the stance you take. Every one of them!

Also present were a dozen or more 'boots on the ground' volunteers who survey sheep, build and maintain big game drinkers and more often than not, understand the desert better than the professionals do, to which the professionals agreed!

When you gain anything close to that level of insight and understanding, get back to me!

From: Grey Ghost
09-Dec-17
Kyle,

Are you capable of not making a discussion about you? Your pet sheep project in the desert isn't the only wildlife management game in town. Comparing it to the situation in Utah is apples and oranges.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
09-Dec-17
Quit avoiding the issue, Matt. You're better than that!

This is a problem ALL ACROSS THE WEST, not just in CA.

From: Grey Ghost
09-Dec-17
Kyle,

By your own admission, human development and resource consumption has caused the need for additional wildlife management efforts (like man-made drinkers) in the desert of CA. I agree. So, my question to you is, why wouldn’t lifting development/consumption restrictions on land in Utah eventually lead to the same problem?

As Michael eluded to earlier, this Utah land currently holds some of the largest and healthiest herds of wildlife in the country, especially elk. Those herds are thriving with minimal management efforts, largely because they have vast amounts of undeveloped/unconsumed land to live on.

Rolling back the monument status of this land merely exposes it to more development. In fact, the oil, gas, and coal interests were the strongest opposition to the monument designation to begin with. And they were the strongest lobbyist to have the designation lifted. That should clue you to what direction this land his heading, and that direction is not good for the wildlife or sportsman.

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
09-Dec-17
Matt,

PLEEZE!

Address the point of the thread, which you are repetitively refusing to do!

From: Grey Ghost
10-Dec-17
I've repeatedly addressed the thread topic. You, on the other hand, continue to avoid it, and have tried to convolute it with inappropriate comparisons to deserts in CA.

Does the monument re-desigantion expose this land to more development? Yes or no? Who has the largest development interests on this land? Are those development interests in the best interests of the wildlife and sportsmen?

Those questions are the topic, my friend. Now, care to participate? If so, answer the questions.

Matt

From: BowSniper
10-Dec-17
Was this same land exposed to development for the hundred years prior to Obama suddenly making it a monument two weeks before he left office? How is going back to the way it always was, now an environmental disaster that should have sportsmen up in arms??? Where were your Big Bear protest letters requesting Obama create this new monument, demonstrating some prior concern.

From: NvaGvUp
10-Dec-17
Matt,

Shame on YOU!

My references to the issues in CA are no more than indicative re. what the problem is in ALL the states in the West. So shame on you for refusing to acknowledge that!

EVERY single state DFG/GFP/DFW agency in the Western US has repetitively had to deal with exactly the same kind of unfathomable crap I noted in CA.

I talk with the biologists and managers in every one of these states on a regular basis, and to a person, they ALL agree the concerns I have are valid and that they have had to deal with exactly the same sort of crap from the BLM and USFS that I have mentioned on this thread.

YOU, OTOH, have never, ever, not even once, talked to any of these people re. the BS they have to deal with on a never-ending basis when it comes to the Feds telling them they can't access Federal lands to manage wildlife.

From: Grey Ghost
10-Dec-17
Kyle,

Please share the stories of the wildlife management struggles your associates have had on the land in question. Otherwise, quit blowing smoke.

Matt

  • Sitka Gear