Bear Ears

joesikora

joesikora

Long Time Member
Messages
3,275
Is the executive order that Trump is signing today good for this area or not?
Also is this area part of the San Jaun (Bobcat's) elk hunting area?

Thanks Joe

"Sometimes you do things wrong for so long you
think their right" - 2001
"I can't argue with honesty" - 2005
-Joe E Sikora
 
The executive order doesn't directly affect the Monument status, it just leads to a review that could affect the status in the future.

Nobody knows with surety how the Monument status would have affected hunting in the Bears Ears (though we do know that existing grazing and mineral rights were kept intact). Also, nobody knows whether losing monument status will lead to "economic development" as Herbert wants via drilling and "disposal of public land".

I tend to believe in playing it safe when it comes to protecting public lands, and therefore supported the Bears Ears Monument; though others disagree with me... which is fine.

I am however concerned with Don Peay's quote, ?In our collective efforts we have given the small towns and sportsmen and ranchers a voice ? a voice now being heard even in the White House.?

Is it too much to ask a sportsmen's group to represent sportsmen and not small towns and ranchers? All available facts (read the Hal Herring article from Field and Stream) show the Bears Ears Monument would have likely been positive for hunting, wildlife, and public access... even if it would have not directly benefitted ranchers. For the record, I unapologetically focus my efforts on preserving public access and hunting, not on keeping cheap grazing fees for ranchers. SFW should refocus their efforts from cattlemen to sportsmen.

Grizzly
 
Thanks grizz for the info

Joe

"Sometimes you do things wrong for so long you
think their right" - 2001
"I can't argue with honesty" - 2005
-Joe E Sikora
 
Well said Frizz. Thanks for the info. I would like to hunt the Bears Ears. Utah does need to protectvlands for the public. If there is hunting and fishing that means it has been preserved from destruction for monetary means.
 
The small town residents know what is better for there land and the land they work and recreate compared to Washington. Ranchers take pretty good care of the land, because there livelihood depends on management and the lands resource.

Lets protect artifacts and critical areas, but lets allow multiple use and sportsmen access, and still take good care of the land.
 
Those lands are the property of 100 Americans for every one Utahn that claims them. In what world does the interest of one owner outweigh the interests of 100 owners? If I own a house in SLC, it is mine. The resident neighbors don't get to decide who parks there, who lives there, whether to drill or graze it. Federal lands in UT do not belong to UT, but they want to use them like they own them, disregarding how the owners want them managed.

UT sucks @ respecting federal laws, law enforcement, priorities, antiquities, Native concerns, and any opinions besides their own. So federal lands are not safe in UT unless given extra protection, such as Monument status.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-17 AT 11:16AM (MST)[p]In a moment of weakness and misguided curiosity I wondered from the well marked trail and end up over on the Political forum and laid this egg that I intended to deliver in Joe's thread.

Now that I've escaped the mire and found my way back, out of that "ground hog day", "whirl pool" of discourse, I'll deliver this where it was originally intended.

Multiple Use Management allows drilling, mining, logging, hiking, fishing, atv us, camping, grazing, hunting, boating, prospecting, shooting, under controlled conditions. So it's certainly possible.

I personally prefer the MUC concept over Parks and Monuments. But....... we all see the land from a different perspective. The Native Americans used it differently than the trappers, the trappers different than the miners, the miners different than the livestockmen, the livestockmen different than the farmers, the farmers different than the hunters, the hunters different than the back packers, the back packers different than the anti-human access and the anti-access different from whoever wants control of it next.

Historically, these changes in control efforts have always gone on, from before the time of the Sioux vs the Cree and the Blackfoot vs the Crow or who ever vs who ever. Who ever has had the most power, controls the use of the land. As much as I prefer to keep it Multiple Use, if the concept looses it's power base, it's gone to the back packers control, for now. If the power stays with those that support Multiple Use, it will stay Multiple Use, for the time being. And..... to answer your question Joe, I believe, which is best, or which is right or wrong for hunters, fisherman, makes no different, it's all about who has the power to control it. Hunters and fishermen represent very little power. Don Peay has been up Senator Hatch butt over it, for 20 years. Hatch has been up Trump butt for 5 months. You can blow off Don if you like but I know where this "heavy" pressure on Hatch came from and it was not from our Governor, although the Gov may support it, at the present time.

I know this, the leasers/grazers in Utah have the mistaken belief that if they can get the government to transfer the land to the States, they can sue the States for the land they've been leasing for decades. They believe their families were cheated out of it over a century ago, and they believe the State will be easier to win a law suit against than win it the power of the Federal Government. They are living in Oz but you can't convenience them they aren't going to get it, if the State the public land from the Federal Government. The worst thing that can happen to the leasers/grazers would be for the land to get transferred to the States, because when it goes on the auction block they'll loose it to companies and individuals that have a thousand times more money than they've ever had. Most, not all, public land leasers/grazers, couldn't buy a new pick-up, if it were not for a high interest loan, from their local banker, who already owes most of their assets. I'm not trying to be derogatory to public land grazers but it is what it is, when it comes who will win and who will loose, if the public land transfer happens. Those that are leasing it now will be gone and out of business quicker than a lightning strike on the open prairie.

My opinion of course, anyone else's is as good or better than mine.

DC
 
Not in favor of monument. Glad to see that some of the monuments may go away. I agree we need some lands protected, but not near the size and scope of the last few presidents monuments. Having been in this area only a handful of times, it is a great place for many types of recreation, including hunting.

Example of timp cave, it is a national monument. One square mile. gives access and protects a cool area. No hunting allowed. Can't get off trails. Didn't need 1000 square miles to protect it.

Yellowstone is a very cool national park. being designated as such as brought in a lot more people than surrounding areas have and if you want solitude from your camp trailer, yellowstone is not the place to go. it is 2.2 million acres.

Bears Ears is is 1.3 million acres of some very remote and desolate land that in my opinion is getting locked up for special interest groups, not what I support.

I like mixed use and the number of national monuments and amount of land designated as such in recent years has been an overreach in my opinion.
 
>Bears Ears is 1.3 million acres
>of some very remote and desolate
>land that in my opinion is getting
>locked up for special interest groups

I have no specific knowledge or opinion about Bears Ears Monument. I do think I understand some of the thinking behind the monument designation.

I believe it "is getting locked up" TO PROTECT IT FROM "special interest groups". Those special interest groups would be the extractive industries like oil and gas. Whether that is justified or not I can only speculate.

Just my $0.02
 
The creation of the Bears Ears was a massive over reach of the Federal government (Obama). I support the Trump review, and of course no one knows the outcome yet. Most anticipate a dramatic whittling down of the proposed size.

I do believe the creation of this monument was more about punishing Utah politicians and the public who did not support Obama than protection of the resource. Creation of a new monument more than half the size of Yellowstone was not necessary to protect the artifacts / cultural sites.

Bill
 
It's a little Late to be protecting Artifacts!






[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
I love the Elk Ridge portion of the Bears Ears area. It used to be a great hunting area. The last time we hunted there with my youngest son, we saw a really good buck right on one of the Bear's Ears.

I am strongly opposed to a National Monument designation. Most of the designated monument area was already managed by the BLM and Forest Service. Some of it was designated wilderness area. A tiny fraction of the area has artifacts on it and it doesn't take 1.3 million acres to protect them.

The designated wilderness draws in a lot of visitors, but is seldom used. It is down off the top where the roads are, and when tourists come and look at it they just say, "wow, I don't want to go down there". They just take a look at it and then leave.

Obama doesn't even know where the area is and has never been there. Many of the pictures they used to publicize it were not even in the monument area. What a joke.
 
It was designated a Monument for the same reason the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was designated. Primarily to garner support for a political party and secure votes on the Federal Level (because it wouldn't and it hasn't secured many votes locally, as it has lost, locally it's a net loss, when the votes are counted.....so it's strictly a Federal vote altering strategy), on a secondary level, on all of these monument designations, there is usually a scenic/historic/archeological aspect to a small portion of the land, to justify the designation. No one wants to destroy special places, so they abuse our love for the truly special acres and exploit it into blocking a huge section of land from Multiple Use, so the anti Multiple Use advocates get more control of it's use and management.

Secondly, and for those groups that want no hunting and other uses, such as some livestock grazing, that are sometimes allowed in some Monuments, it moves it a step closer to a Park statue, and we all know what happens then. So....... for those folks, it's a slow heating of the water until the frogs are in full boil, without feeling it coming.

Another thing I've noticed, since they started designating these Monument, so frequently and so successfully the Wilderness Area advocates have been unusually quiet. I assume they see the monuments as an easier go and I have to admit, their are not stupid and they've been kicking our butts getting these monuments designated, so my guess is they have decided to throw in and ride this pony while it's winning.

I would expect, if Ryan Zinke closes the monument designation door, the Wilderness Area advocates will switch back to demanding more wilderness areas. How you betting?

It won't stop, they will fight until their money runs out and what's the chances of that?

DC
 
I know Zinke is a Montana guy and a former Navy SEAL but can you elaborate on how he alone can close the monument door? It is Federal law that went through congress and was signed by the president. Zinke can't ignore the law.

Let's say the review unwinds the monument, then what? The tribes just go away? The supporters just shrug and say "oh well"? Given how the Trump administration gets beat like a rented mule in court I suspect your tax dollars will be helping fund many attorney's vacation homes for years to come. I know for Utah residents it is a foreign concept to sit down and make a deal with others who don't think exactly like you do, but you may want to give it a try.

Maybe you will get the monument undone but all it takes then would be a different president and bam you are again whining about over reach and being punished or what ever your latest gripe about the Federal government is.

You all should show the government you hate them and stop cashing the checks they send you and have your seniors refuse Medicare and such. That would show those evil bastages in DC.

Nemont
 
>
>It's a little Late to be
>protecting Artifacts!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My
>Signature Just for NVB!
>Like 6 Damn Times Now!


Exactly the attitude that led to fines/jail/suicide. And motivated the Monument designation. It is never too late to protect irreplaceable landscapes, history, species. If UT had kept their state lands instead of selling them for lunch $, they could manage them how they want. But they didn't, so now they want to dig up the Fed sandbox and let their Cats crap in it. Not UT's property.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-17 AT 09:04AM (MST)[p]Congress passed a law giving a President wide latitude to declare National Monuments. This rubs people wrong because they think the Monument was created by the stroke of one pen, even though that power was granted by Congress.

Yet those same people want one person (Trump or Zinke) to undo the Monument with the stroke of a pen. Hence, one person declaring himself above the laws granted by Congress.

Seems like a dubious position to take.

Grizzly
 
It is nice to see thoughtful discourse on a these forums!

The issue of the monument, like most complex issues, has more nuance than most of us will ever have the time to understand fully.

From my simplistic view of the issue it rubbed me wrong that Clinton in the last few days of his presidency created a the Grand Staircase then Obama did the same with the Bear's Ears. Just the timing and seemly lack of discourse before the designation made both reek of pandering to environmental groups and liberal-leaning political views.

However my simplistic view also recognizes the value of having a land designation that may help to preserve public lands for outdoor pursuits such as hunting and camping. It is disheartening to hunt in places like WY and CO where there is such a prevalence of large privately-owns tracts of prime hunting land that are off limits except to the those with a lot of money. From this perspective the new designations may be a blessing to hunters as these lands will remain available to us even if we have to jump through more hoops to use them.
 
>
>It's a little Late to be
>protecting Artifacts!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My
>Signature Just for NVB!
>Like 6 Damn Times Now!


True that. Every archialogical site that you can ride an ATV to has already been raped and pillaged.
 
"Those who locked up the Bear's Ears believe it "is getting locked up" TO PROTECT IT FROM "special interest groups". Those special interest groups would be the extractive industries like oil and gas. "

Yet every drop, and cubic foot of carbon on the planet will get extracted no matter where, or no matter who tries to stop it.

Arguing that fact is not only ignorance of the world you live, but also ignorance of the part you play in the the inevitable extraction of those NATURAL resources.
 
>...our litter will someday be artifacts....
>

So Somebody Will be Pickin Up Lead?








[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
As a native Utahn and life-long hunter who has a personal history in the area, I support BENM. That said, it's a piss poor way to manage our lands. But due to Utah's political "leadership", it's the only move left on the chess board. (This game has been in play for 35 years or more.)

Seems to me that with so many diverse stakeholders at the table, consensus would be far better than litigated decisions. And make no mistake, this is going to court.

The problem with that is that Utah's politicians lack the leadership skills necessary to guide consensus process. Bishop deserves some credit for at least making an attempt, but his failure demonstrates my point.

So I'm less concerned about Bear's Ears than I am about the management issues that are appearing elsewhere in the state. Like, what's going to happen with the Bookcliffs?
 
The best way to protect an area is to keep your mouth shut. There will be thousands of people that visit BENM this year that never knew it existed until a few months ago.
 
>The best way to protect an
>area is to keep your
>mouth shut. There will be
>thousands of people that visit
>BENM this year that never
>knew it existed until a
>few months ago.

Tourism definitely increased in GSENM after designation, no doubt. We used to hike into areas that were free of public presence but now have a parking lot at the trailhead... so I completely understand your argument.

But the damage done by Subaru's will look pristine if the land grabbers open GSENM up for coal mining. There's always a give and take. For instance, drive past the Bears Ears into Farmington, NM to see what could be the future of Bears Ears if Herbert has his way. I, for one, don't want that for Bears Ears.

And for those who claim there's no oil/gas in Bears Ears... then the Monument wouldn't affect the economy because there's no significant potential to utilize that land anyway.

If the Monument status hurts the local economies, then they must intend to profit off the land somehow and that must be future mining or drilling since grazing is still allowed under Bears Ears Monument. Tourism dollars increased in Escalante from the Monument, maybe Bears Ears is the best thing that could happen to Blanding's economy.

Grizzly
 
Well Grizzly!

If it would be "The Best Thing for Their Economy"!

Don't Ya Think More Locals would be All For It?

No Doubt a Few Would Profit from it!

Like I've Always Said:

Let's Protect It!

But Let's Not Over Protect it!

Just Because Some Panty-Waste on His Way out Of Office Pulled what He Pulled Doesn't make it Right!

The Artifacts have Been Ravaged for 150 years now!

Now All of a Sudden We're Gonna Fix it All!

Most of that Damage Has been done by NON-LOCALS!







[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
> Well Grizzly!
>
>If it would be "The Best
>Thing for Their Economy"!
>
>Don't Ya Think More Locals would
>be All For It?
>

A popularity contest is never a viable way to discern what is actually best for a group of people (Clinton beat Trump, are you ready to concede that means she'd be a better President?). Popularity contests are especially worthless when corporations, like those that profit from the pillaging of public lands, contribute 96% of all money to Utah state legislators (the very politicians that are pushing for overturning of Bears Ears and the privatization of public lands)... while the groups that profit from public access and protecting public land support the Bears Ears virtually unanimously.

Who do you trust to protect public land, the guy that wants to drill it, make millions from it and move on... or the guy that wants to camp there and leave it as he found it?

There was also a group of locals claiming the new monument had a $100 entry fee and posting signs around town stating as much. Many of the locals are caught up in misinformation and lies.


620821719070914265209474184333144260707527978695n.jpg



>Most of that Damage Has been
>done by NON-LOCALS!


Historically, that may be so (hence the initial reason for the Antiquities Act), but in the last 50 years I don't believe your statement is accurate. It was virtually all locals arrested in the sting years ago and they're the ones demanding access for their ATVs in these canyons, not outsiders. Remember, people claim that nobody even knew of these areas but locals, so it must be locals doing the damage.

Grizzly
 
Grizzly, please realize that it is your own life style that will bring the the drillers to all these places we love.

Every drop, and cubic foot of carbon on the planet will get extracted no matter where, or no matter who tries to stop it.

Arguing that fact is not only ignorance of the world you live, but also ignorance of the part YOU, and I, and all of us, play in the the inevitable extraction of those NATURAL resources.

The oil age stops when the last drop is used.

Sorry
 
>> Well Grizzly!
>>
>>If it would be "The Best
>>Thing for Their Economy"!
>>
>>Don't Ya Think More Locals would
>>be All For It?
>>
>
>A popularity contest is never a
>viable way to discern what
>is actually best for a
>group of people (Clinton beat
>Trump, are you ready to
>concede that means she'd be
>a better President?). Popularity contests
>are especially worthless when corporations,
>like those that profit from
>the pillaging of public lands,
>contribute 96% of all money
>to Utah state legislators (the
>very politicians that are pushing
>for overturning of Bears Ears
>and the privatization of public
>lands)... while the groups that
>profit from public access and
>protecting public land support the
>Bears Ears virtually unanimously.
>
>Who do you trust to protect
>public land, the guy that
>wants to drill it, make
>millions from it and move
>on... or the guy that
>wants to camp there and
>leave it as he found
>it?
>
>There was also a group of
>locals claiming the new monument
>had a $100 entry fee
>and posting signs around town
>stating as much. Many of
>the locals are caught up
>in misinformation and lies.
>
>
>
620821719070914265209474184333144260707527978695n.jpg

>
>
>>Most of that Damage Has been
>>done by NON-LOCALS!
>
>
>Historically, that may be so (hence
>the initial reason for the
>Antiquities Act), but in
>the last 50 years I
>don't believe your statement is
>accurate. It was virtually
>all locals arrested in the
>sting years ago and they're
>the ones demanding access for
>their ATVs in these canyons,
>not outsiders. Remember, people claim
>that nobody even knew of
>these areas but locals, so
>it must be locals doing
>the damage.
>
>Grizzly

You ever Read up on that Grizzly!

The Redd Guy killed Himself thanks to a Bead that He had in Possession that was worth between 20.00-300.00!

Depending on Who You Listen to!

The Government Spent Who knows how F'N Much Money on that Deal just to have somebody Commit Suicide!

If Redd Hadn't of Picked it Up the very Next Person by Would Have!

They Went to some LOW Levels to do what they did,All over a Bead!










[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-17 AT 08:12PM (MST)[p]That was a bad deal, no question. I know family members of some of those involved and there certainly was a better way to handle it.

Grizzly
 
>Grizzly, please realize that it
>is your own life style
>that will bring the the
>drillers to all these places
>we love.
>
>Every drop, and cubic foot of
>carbon on the planet will
>get extracted no matter where,
>or no matter who tries
>to stop it.
>
>Arguing that fact is not only
>ignorance of the world you
>live, but also ignorance of
>the part YOU, and I,
>and all of us, play
>in the the inevitable extraction
>of those NATURAL resources.
>
>The oil age stops when the
>last drop is used.
>
>Sorry

Yup if rape is inevitable might as well lay back and enjoy it.

Might as well quit hunting and fishing now and give all public land to the oil and gas companies.
 
>Those lands are the property of
>100 Americans for every one
>Utahn that claims them. In
>what world does the interest
>of one owner outweigh the
>interests of 100 owners? If
>I own a house in
>SLC, it is mine. The
>resident neighbors don't get to
>decide who parks there, who
>lives there, whether to drill
>or graze it. Federal lands
>in UT do not belong
>to UT, but they want
>to use them like they
>own them, disregarding how the
>owners want them managed.
>
>UT sucks @ respecting federal laws,
>law enforcement, priorities, antiquities, Native
>concerns, and any opinions besides
>their own. So federal lands
>are not safe in UT
>unless given extra protection, such
>as Monument status.

I always shake my head. This land, which is still there, needs to be protected from who? For what? The federal gov, owns it. So the federal gov, needs to protect land from the federal government? The indian ruins should be protected, no doubt, but this thing is 10x bigger than zions park. 10x. And we are going to get excited that its protected and we keep hunting it? Do you want to take that gamble with president Elizabeth Warren, or Pres Bernie Sanders? I agree Hurbert sucks.

Lastly, I sit here typing on a plastic computer, my plastic phone sitting next to me. I will go get in my 3/4 ton truck to go work this morning. I spent the weekend in my sxs, shooting whistle pigs with shells trucked into the sporting goods store. My furnace kicked on this morning so I can sit here in shorts and offer opinions. Point being, IF you want to stop drilling, you simply have to make it not viable. I hate to go all San Fran on you guys, but short of an alternative, you have to drill. And, unlike a lot of guys, aparently, I am not willing to keep asking some other dude to send his kid to the middle east to protect oil, so I can sit in my nice house, driving my cummins, bitching about oil drillers. And ANY of you who trust that someone in Wash DC cares more about the land, than the dude running his cows/sheep on it, are of zero use to sportsmen. Remember, the feds ALREADY own the land. So we have to protect it from them. Seems odd doesn't it?

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I wonder if the fed govt will make some fake artifacts to put in place of what's already gone. LOL. On another note did applications for elk go up or down on the SJ?
 
We have to protect public land for the use and benefit of millions of people from the Rob Bishops of the world, who put $200,000 in his pocket in the last two years alone from oil companies. And to be clear, Rob Bishop is a Fed, he literally works for the federal government making laws... so in a way the federal government is trying to protect land from the federal government.

To each their own, but I'm dumbfounded that guys take the position that just because we may need that specific oil generations from now, that we should give up our public land and wildlife today so a few individuals can get exorbitantly wealthy off land owned by The People.

PS. Many ranchers don't care about wildlife, go to the RACs and listen to them trying to limit elk year after year. As 2lumpy correctly wrote, many ranchers think they should be given the land, not just be able to graze on it. They believe in convoluted form of "adverse possession" that says because they put land to beneficial use, they should own it after a period of years. There certainly are ranchers that value public land and wildlife, but the opposite is also true.

Grizzly
 
Grizzly, I don't believe we should not try to manage our public lands to preserve it as best we can.

Yet you still can not argue that some of that $200,000 raked in by Bishop came out of your own pocket so you can be comfy.

I kind of get dumfounded by people bad mouthing the people who keep them and there families alive,,IE energy producers, ranchers, and farmers.

Few others produce anything more important to humanity.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-17 AT 10:04PM (MST)[p]"As evidence of his disdain, President Obama issued this declaration with no open debate, no public hearing and no vote in Congress." - Orrin Hatch

I guess if the land grabbers repeat it enough, somebody is going to start believing its true, when in reality these protections have been in discussion for over 80 years; including heavy discussion and public meetings with local members of Congress over most of this decade.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/1936-proposed-enm-map.pdf

PS. "A recent poll found 63 percent of respondents supported Trump?s stated position of keeping public lands in federal hands. In another key finding, voters overall said they want to keep existing national monument designations, by a margin of 80 percent to 13 percent. Voters in Utah were asked specifically whether the recent designation of Bears Ears National Monument was a good thing. Forty-seven percent said yes, 32 percent no. The annual poll was conducted by a bipartisan research team for the Colorado College State of the Rockies Project."

Grizzly
 
If 99.9999% of voters in Utah said the Bears Ears National Monument was a good thing, I'd still say, "no, it wasn't".

The last thing we need in Utah is more Parks and Monuments. Google how many Federal and State Parks and Monuments we already have in Utah. Enough is enough. The more they designate, the more it drives people to support transferring public lands to the State. Stupid, short sighted strategy, in my opinion,

DC
 
If I had to guess, I'd say Bears Ears will likely be reduced in size in coming months. Here's an image showing what the Farmington, NM area looks like. Farmington is just across the Four Corners area and is home to 40,000 wells. The "economic development" that Herbert talks about using to raise money from public lands for schools... this is what it looks like. PS. Only 1% of Utah school funding comes from SITLA, so Trust Lands are not a big contributor.

87699attachment.jpg


And here is a map of methane gas for the USA. Compare the Four Corners to Los Angeles for reference.

3092614280.jpg


I'm okay with altering the Monument size, and I think there's likely some middle ground, but I sure hope it never looks like it's counterpart across the Four Corners.
 
The Koch brothers will decide


https://medium.com/westwise/interio...backed-political-operative-while-9194a3112c16



May 9
Interior Secretary Zinke hikes to Native American ruin with Koch-backed political operative while snubbing tribal leaders.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke toured the Bears Ears National Monument yesterday, spending his morning flying over the monument and the afternoon hiking to one of the many thousands of archaeological sites with a slew of national monument opponents. Prominently featured in Secretary Zinke?s tour group was Matt Anderson, a Utah-based political operative with ties to multiple entities funded by the Koch brothers.

Noticeably absent from the secretary?s tour group, however, was a single member of the five sovereign tribal nations who've worked tirelessly for years to permanently protect their cultural heritage within Bears Ears. The message Secretary Zinke is sending is loud and clear: multi-billion dollar campaign donors, industrial development interests, and their hired hands trump everyone else.
This reality is driven home by Matt Anderson?s presence yesterday and the ?face time? he was given with Secretary Zinke ? photographers captured him hiking through the national monument alongside the secretary and Utah Congressman Rob Bishop. Anderson is a senior policy fellow with Federalism in Action and is also a policy analyst with the Coalition for Self-Government in the West, which is a project of the Sutherland Institute.
Both the Sutherland Institute and Federalism in Action are well-known for receiving their funding through a web of ?dark money? groups associated with the Koch brothers, the billionaire industrialists with business holdings in oil, gas, and other petrochemical companies. The Sutherland Institute, for example, has taken in well north of one million dollars from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund ? often referred to as the dark money ATM, allowing the Koch brothers and other uber-wealthy, right wing donors to give anonymously. Similarly, Federalism in Action, which was launched a few years ago by the State Policy Network, has deep ties into the Koch brothers funding network. (The Sutherland Institute is also a member of the State Policy Network).
What's more, Federalism in Action ? and its ?Free the Lands? project which Matt Anderson runs ? has an explicit goal to ?shepherd the transfer? of American public lands from the U.S. government to the states. This, of course, is a goal which Secretary Zinke claims to be fiercely opposed to. ?Free the Lands? was first established by Utah Representative Ken Ivory who remains under an ethical cloud for mixing state business and his anti-public lands advocacy efforts, while enriching himself in the process. Anderson took the reigns at ?Free the Lands? from Rep. Ivory, continueing to push the U.S. government to dispose of public lands into state and private hands.

Despite these troubling links, Secretary Zinke has happily given Matt Anderson his ear, while brushing aside requests from tribal leaders who have made a simple request: ?We are asking for equal time.?
Instead, Secretary Zinke is dedicating his time to fiercely anti-monument and anti-public lands advocates. Today, he's set to ride through Bears Ears on a horse provided by San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams.
Commissioner Adams made news last year when he stated publicly that ?nobody really had settled? in the Bears Ears region before his own white ancestors. And nobody has been more honest than Commissioner Bruce Adams about why he, his fellow monument-opponents like Matt Anderson, and the Koch brothers want Secretary Zinke and President Trump to eliminate the Bears Ears National Monument: access to oil, gas, and uranium.
The Bears Ears National Monument, which holds tens of thousands of archaeological sites with spiritual and cultural significance, is exactly the kind of landscape where industrial-scale oil, gas, and mineral development does not belong. It's why President Obama heeded the request from five sovereign tribal nations and protected the region using the Antiquities Act.
But don't be surprised when Secretary Zinke and President Trump decide to make the unprecedented and illegal decision to wipe Bears Ears National Monument from the map. After all, that's the one-sided advice they're choosing to receive.
 
NVBighorn. Sec. Zinke has had several meetings with the pro monument groups. Even if there time was limited, he gave them more time than Sally Jewel gave any local person.
 
Cant, that may be true but clearly the influence of big oil is packing more influence than anyone including locals. Too bad we can't fast forward 20 years to see how these things turn out and then rewind and make the right decision.
 
So does anybody have any links or information showing all the minerals and oil that are viable for extraction on the Bears Ear?

I have yet to find any information showing that they exist. Maybe a geologist could enlighten us.

What magic resource is there in the area that is going magically save San Juan county?

And I have yet to see any suggestions as to what a satisfactory reduction would be that doesn't equal 0 acres.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-09-17 AT 03:20PM (MST)[p]middlefork, I'm not sure a study exists as to what minerals could be extracted from the Bears Ears.

But, if the answer to your question is, "There isn't any oil/gas in Bears Ears anyway" then the Monument status wouldn't be negatively affecting the economic vitality of the area because there is no oil/gas there to drill for in the first place. Therefore, it isn't the Monument that is stopping drilling, it is the lack of anything to drill for in the first place.

Also, all existing timber/grazing/drilling/mining rights are grandfathered into the Monument status and still exist if the right-holder chooses to exercise that right.

Bottom line is the Monument doesn't change the Bears Ears (stop extraction, close access, restrict hunting), it just keeps it the way it is today so it doesn't look like the Farmington, NM pics I posted above.

Grizzly
 
What happened to directional drilling? Is it useful for gas extraction? Couldn't there be a compromise to extract what we need to without looking like the gas well picture above?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Thanks for posting cantkillathing.

I especially like what he says beginning at 12:49.

Grizzly
 
Did He Ride His Wheeler down a Closed Road?

I Doubt it!






[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-18-17 AT 10:36PM (MST)[p]In my opinion, based on past behavior, SUWA, the South Utah Wilderness Alliance will gut you with a dull knife and feel morally justified Griz. Of course they will defend hunting and grazing, if it helps them eventually lock up more land. I find it very suspicious that they devoted the final paragraph in the ad to promote hunting, fishing and grazing, rather than back country back packing, which has alway been their primary focus. In my opinion, they are USING you, not helping you. They are untrustworthy, in my opinion. Be damn careful that your burning passion isn't being taken advantage of.

They may want to hop in bed with us, but they aren't welcome in my bed, bud. No way, no how, I know these folks.

Have you seen the list of Wilderness Study areas that SUWA has already targeted for full blown Wilderness? Check it out. 3,234,518 acres. Add these acres to the National Parks, Monuments, and already designated Wilderness Areas. How much more in Utah do you want Griz?

. Behind the Rocks
. Black Ridge 
Canyon West
. Book Cliffs
 Mountain Browse ISA
. Bridger Jack Mesa
. Bull Canyon
. Bull Mountain
. Burning Hills
. Butler Wash
. Canaan Mountain
. Carcass Canyon
. Cheese Box Canyon
. Coal Canyon
. Conger Mountain
. Crack Canyon
. Cross Canyon
. Daniels Canyon
. Dark Canyon 
ISA Complex
. Death Ridge
. Deep Creek Mountains
 Scott's Basin?
. Desolation Canyon
. Devils Canyon
. Devils Garden ISA
. Diamond Breaks
. Dirty Devil
. Escalante Canyons Tract 1
. Escalante Canyons Tract 5
. Fiddler Butte WSA
. Fifty Mile Mountain
. Fish Creek Canyon
. Fish Springs
. Floy Canyon
. Flume Canyon
. Fremont Gorge
. French Spring-Happy Canyon
. Grand Gulch
. Horseshoe Canyon
(North)
. Horseshoe Canyon
(South)
. Howell Peak
. Indian Creek
. Jack Canyon
. King Top
. Link Flats
. Little Rockies
. Lost Spring Canyon
. Mancos Mesa
. Mexican Mountain
. Mill Creek Canyon
. Moquith Mountain
. Mount?Ellen-Blue Hills
. Mount?Hillers
. Mount?Pennell
. Mud Spring Canyon
. Muddy Creek
. Mule Canyon
. Negro Bill Canyon
. North Escalante Canyons
. North Fork Virgin River
. North Stansbury Mountains
. Notch Peak
. Orderville Canyon
. Paria-Hackberry
. Parunuweap Canyon
. Phipps-Death Hollow
. Road Canyon
. Rockwell
. San Rafael Reef
. Scorpion
. Scott's Basin
. Sids Cabin 202
. Sids Mountain
. South Needles
. Spring Creek Canyon
. Spruce Canyon
. Squaw-Papoose Canyon
. Steep Creek
. Swasey Mountain
. The Blues
. The Cockscomb
. Turtle Canyon
. Wah Wah Mountains
. Wahweap
. West Cold Spring
. Westwater Canyon
. White Rock Range
. Winter Ridge


How much more do you want to take out of Multiple Use Griz.

DC
 
You're not making the case you think you're making. I like Wilderness Areas, they often have the best hiking and hunting destinations (except in Wyoming because of their outfitter rule).

Everything you say about SUWA using hunters to advance their agenda, I could turn around and apply to the Republican Party raping our posterity for their personal financial gain. The Republican Party is using your beliefs on abortion to get you to keep them in office so they can literally put hundreds of thousands of dollars in their own bank account. And you just say, "Thank you, would you like more?"

It's a circular logic that goes both ways, the difference is that the supporters of Bears Ears are financed by Patagonia (companies that profit from hiking) and the opponents of Bears Ears are represented by groups like Lyman Family Farms (who has spent millions buying State Trust Land in the region and privatizing it) and Koch Brothers (the second largest private company in America, who somehow have enough influence to get a representative on the tour with Zinke).

So who's being USED by whom?

Grizzly
 
So......... now we know where we stand Griz. We now understand who we are, what we represent and why. ;-)

DC
 
Let's Protect it!

But Let's Not Over Protect it!

The Day they Over Protect it We're Done Using it as We Know it!

Kills Me!

All of a Sudden they're worried about the Artifacts that have been Pilfered for over a 100 Years!










[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
>So......... now we know where we
>stand Griz. We now
>understand who we are, what
>we represent and why. ;-)
>
>
>DC

Exactly. I'm an unabashed supporter of public land and public access. It should be preserved for all of us, not prostituted by a few oil companies for massive personal financial gain at the expense of the public and wildlife.

Grizzly
 
>>So......... now we know where we
>>stand Griz. We now
>>understand who we are, what
>>we represent and why. ;-)
>>
>>
>>DC
>
>Exactly. I'm an unabashed supporter of
>public land and public access.
>It should be preserved for
>all of us, not prostituted
>by a few oil companies
>for massive personal financial gain
>at the expense of the
>public and wildlife.
>
>Grizzly

Are you against all oil, gas or mining development on public land or just select locations?
 
>Are you against all oil, gas
>or mining development on public
>land or just select locations?
>

Fair question. My beliefs are that the industries have corrupted the politicians. For instance, Rob Bishop was paid $200,000 in the last two years alone by oil companies. If that didn't influence his voting, there would be no reason for the oil companies to give him the money... they might as well set it on fire. Companies know their contributions influence politicians or they wouldn't give them money.

Now that we've discussed why I don't trust politicians to protect public lands, I need to be clear that this whole discussion is one of relativism. We need to agree that some lands are more worthy of protection than others. Obviously, Yellowstone is more important to protect from development than alkali salt flats.

The next thing to understand is the games that oil/mining companies play to avoid their royalty payments on public lands. Did you know it's a widely used ploy for companies to get resources from the ground, sell those resources to an entity they control, pay the royalty on that artificially low price, and then raise the sells price to current market levels before selling it on the open market? They're required to pay 12.5% state and federal royalty, so they use fuzzy math to pay that amount on a lower purchase price instead of fair market value. Obama rightfully closed this loophole on his way out the door, but Trump/Bishop undid it.

Utah politicians don't really care about money for education or they'd demand full royalties, their goal is privatization and development and many of them are on record as saying such, including Herbert.

Extraction should not be banned from public lands, but some areas should be exempted from the profiting of the few at the expense of the many... especially when they're not paying their agreed-upon amount anyway and are shoveling money into the wallets of the Republican Party that holds the key to public gates.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON May-19-17 AT 12:44PM (MST)[p]>Now that we've discussed why I
>don't trust politicians to protect
>public lands, I need to
>be clear that this whole
>discussion is one of relativism.
>We need to agree that
>some lands are more worthy
>of protection than others. Obviously,
>Yellowstone is more important to
>protect from development than alkali
>salt flats.

Totally agree. And when you use the two polar opposites of Yellowstone and a salt flat you will likely get very little disagreement from anyone. What about the 99% of places that fall somewhere in between? More difficult answer in those situations. In the case of Bears Ears, one person got to decide. Is that how it should always work? I happen to think the NEPA process when it is not bastardized by either side works well.

>
>The next thing to understand is
>the games that oil/mining companies
>play to avoid their royalty
>payments on public lands. Did
>you know it's a widely
>used ploy for companies to
>get resources from the ground,
>sell those resources to an
>entity they control, pay the
>royalty on that artificially low
>price, and then raise the
>sells price to current market
>levels before selling it on
>the open market?

I know that this is a widely held misconception. One that is used often by those that simply want coal to go away. Here is how it works. For most domestic sales the royalty is paid by the Buyer on the price to the Seller. The Seller covers the cost of shipping and handling therefore no royalty is paid on shipping. Just like every other product. What you are referring to is typically for export coal. In the case of exports the Seller typically carries all the shipping and handling costs. The rail to the port, the port handling, the ship loading, the ship unloading, the other countries port handling and rail loading, etc. Therefore to cover all those additional costs the Seller requires a much higher price. In order to not pay royalties on the shipping, just like domestic coal sales and every other product exported from the US, many companies have a trading arm under their parent company. They then sell the coal to the trading arm, at fair market value. The royalty is paid on this sales price. The trading arm then sells the coal to the final Buyer and covers the cost of shipping and handling. The fair market value is regulated. There is an entire governmental department that does nothing else but make sure the price sold to the trading arm is fair and competitive to market prices. No games. No fuzzy math. Just simple, straightforward and regulated. If you or anyone else thinks the Royalty rate should be higher then please advocate for that. I am not so na?ve as to think that some coal company has not tried to manipulate this system. But that is far from how reputable coal companies work. It is inaccurate to state that coal companies are somehow allowed to manipulate the system. If they are then where is the hatred of the regulators.

They're required
>to pay 12.5% state and
>federal royalty

You are incorrect. Federal royalty rate is 12.5% on surface coal and 8% on Underground coal. State royalty rates differ by State and are typically equal to or lower than the Federal rate.

>so they use
>fuzzy math to pay that
>amount on a lower purchase
>price instead of fair market
>value. Obama rightfully closed this
>loophole on his way out
>the door, but Trump/Bishop undid
>it.

No he did not, you are once again incorrect. Obama put a 3 year moratorium on any new Federal Coal leases and recommended a review of the royalty rates and calculations. In typical Obama fashion he did not do anything. Trump simply restarted the Federal coal leasing program. No changes. Same as it was prior to the moratorium.


>Utah politicians don't really care about
>money for education or they'd
>demand full royalties, their goal
>is privatization and development and
>many of them are on
>record as saying such, including
>Herbert.
>

I don't disagree with this other than your misunderstanding of how royalties are paid and calculated.

>Extraction should not be banned from
>public lands, but some areas
>should be exempted from the
>profiting of the few at
>the expense of the many...
>especially when they're not paying
>their agreed-upon amount anyway and
>are shoveling money into the
>wallets of the Republican Party
>that holds the key to
>public gates.
>
>Grizzly

From this thread a few others you seem to have a burr under your saddle for mining. You state many common misconceptions, exaggerations and flat out lies about modern day mining practices that are typically used by those that simply want mining to go away. I don't doubt your sincerity for wanting to protect special places but you should really get facts instead of propaganda. If you would like to PM me I would be happy to talk to you on the phone and give you facts about mining both good and bad.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-19-17 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]
mulecreek, I always appreciate a lively discussion. I don't have time to respond to all your post, but here are a few items where we disagree.

You stated, "Trump simply restarted the Federal coal leasing program. No changes."

Please see the quote below on the subject from a Deseret News article...

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the rule change threatened to increase electricity rates for rural communities by raising the cost utilities pay for coal.

"The Trump administration made the right decision to suspend this illogical and legally dubious rule," Bishop said.

Conservationists criticized the move, saying it was a "sweetheart deal" for the industry from the Trump administration and will deprive states of much-needed revenues. About half the coal royalties collected by the federal government is disbursed to states.

"This announcement is a gift to coal companies trying to avoid paying their fair share," said Steve Charter, a Montana rancher who lives next to the Bull Mountain coal mine near Roundup, which has sold fuel to customers in Asia.

The Interior Department rule also included changes to oil and gas valuations, but those changes have attracted far less attention than coal royalties.


Even Rob Bishop said the Trump administration chose to "suspend" the rule and the article clearly calls it a "rule change".

--------------

The surface coal and onshore drilling for oil is charged a 12.5% federal royalty, as I stated. Of that money, 50% goes to the state and 40% is paid to Land Water Conservation Fund which is in place to protect natural resources among other things. Bishop tried to gut LWCF and direct the money to oil companies by, among other things, channeling at least 20% of the fund to promote offshore drilling (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-changes-popular-conservation-fund/75113500/). He also tried to pass a bill banning LWCF from purchasing any more land for public access.

This is another example of politicians being willing to sell our public land (whether by deed or use) to the oil companies that literally pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it goes to show politicians can't be trusted to protect public lands.

PS. Utah charges a 16.67% royalty and Texas charges 25% royalty. The federal royalty rate has not been changed since the 1920's. I argue they're not paying their fair share.

----------------

You stated, "In the case of Bears Ears, one person got to decide. Is that how it should always work?"

In reality, Congress gave the President sole power under the Antiquities Act, which means it was granted by a vote of Congress. Congress has also chosen to not remove that power in over 100 years. What Bears Ears opponents want is one person, Trump, to go against a Congressionally-approved law, The Antiquities Act. This could be argued as an abuse-of-power, not the other way around. Congress specifically gave the President the power to declare Monuments, Congress did not give anybody the power to revoke a Monument.... so its obvious which one would really be an abuse of Executive Orders.

Grizzly
 
grizzly,

You will get no argument from me the Bishop is a pile of crap that has no regard for public land or the US citizens that own it. However, the rule was never changed it was set to happen Jan 1, 2017. Obama accomplished nothing, he jumped on the bandwagon of those shouting about "Big Coal and it's evil ways" but in the end he waited too long and it never got enacted. Trump halted the proposed rule change.

Just because you feel the royalty rate should be higher is not an argument that companies are not paying their fair share. Just because you want something doesn't make it so. Since UT and TX are requiring a higher royalty rate than the Fed is that an argument that UT and TX are demanding more than a fair share from coal companies?

It is far easier to argue that the high profit days are over for US coal and that the royalty rate should be lowered.
 
So grizzly?

You a Democrat?







[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-19-17 AT 09:23PM (MST)[p]> So grizzly?
>
>
>You a Democrat?

I'm an Independent. I was a delegate at the Republican Convention to get Bennett out of office in favor of Mike Lee, but now I'd likely vote for a moderate Democrat to unseat Lee if given the chance. Last year I voted for a Republican for President, but Weinholtz over Herbert for Governor.

I'd be ashamed of myself if I committed my ideology and beliefs to only one political party and didn't examine the issues and the individuals. People who do that are the reason we have Herbert and Bishop.

Grizzly
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-19-17
>AT 09:23?PM (MST)
>
>> So grizzly?
>>
>>
>>You a Democrat?
>
>I'm an Independent. I was a
>delegate at the Republican Convention
>to get Bennett out of
>office in favor of Mike
>Lee, but now I'd likely
>vote for a moderate Democrat
>to unseat Lee if given
>the chance. Last year I
>voted for a Republican for
>President, but Weinholtz over Herbert
>for Governor.
>
>I'd be ashamed of myself if
>I committed my ideology and
>beliefs to only one political
>party and didn't examine the
>issues and the individuals. People
>who do that are the
>reason we have Herbert and
>Bishop.
>
>Grizzly


No Offense By Asking!

I'd Vote for a Democrat if they Were the Best Choice & Somebody that could & Would do their Job!









[Font][Font color = "blue"]I Changed My Signature Just for NVB!
Like 6 Damn Times Now!
 
HAHA Grizzly got into a debate with someone that actually knows the facts and he got caught with his pants down. It is real easy to spout off about facts until someone else has the goods!

My grandpa always told me, the best time to bluff is when you have the best hand. well your ace high just got called by 4 kings!!! hahahah
 
LAST EDITED ON May-21-17 AT 00:22AM (MST)[p]Tknez, you couldn't be more wrong... either you didn't read the entire thread or you didn't understand what you read. Here's a recap...

mulecreek said Trump didn't change the rule, I provided a quote from Rob Bishop commending Trump for suspending the rule and an article specifically calling it a "rule change".

I said the "oil/mining companies" are required to pay a 12.5% "state and federal royalty". mulecreek claimed that was incorrect, but the actual royalty for oil, gas, and surface coal is 12.5% as I stated (mulecreek was correct when referring to the underground coal royalty). Of said royalty, 50% goes to the State and the remaining is split between federal programs, as I alluded.

mulecreek wrote, "State royalty rates differ by State and are typically equal to or lower than the Federal rate." Actual numbers are Texas - 25%; New Mexico and North Dakota - 18.75%; Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Montana charge 16.67%. In the western US, State rates are not typically equal to or lower than the Federal rate.

mulecreek and I have a gentleman's disagreement on how royalties should be calculated, as I believe you could put the two smartest business economists in the world together and they could disagree on the accounting practices of royalties owed. What I think we can agree on is that the mineral companies do everything they can to limit their financial responsibility to the American citizen and use any tool in their arsenal to lower that payment (as do I when I meet with my accountant). The question is what tools should they have in the first place... and we can respectfully disagree on that point.

We discussed what I termed the "relativism" of protecting certain land and mulecreek implied that "one person" (the President) shouldn't "get to decide". I disputed that argument up by pointing out that Congress granted the President that power over 100 years ago, yet nobody granted the President the power to undo a Monument... so attempting to undo it would be that very "one person" overstepping their authority that mulecreek referred to.

----------------

I respect mulecreek's opinions. The thing I like about him is we can have a respectful and informative discussion among two people that simply see the world slightly differently. But I feel I had to respond to Tknez since his post about me was provably false.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON May-21-17 AT 03:33AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-21-17 AT 03:33?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON May-21-17 AT 03:29?AM (MST)

Ok Grizz I will bite...

"The next thing to understand is the games that oil/mining companies play to avoid their royalty payments on public lands, so they use fuzzy math to pay that amount on a lower purchase price instead of fair market value."

So as far as the exact percent that are required to be paid I am not really saying much about that. The big part of your post, and correct me if I am wrong, that you seemed to want to drive home was oil and gas along with the mining industry do NOT pay their fair share of even what is agreed on. As you even stated such in your last paragraph. "especially when they're not paying their agreed-upon amount anyway".

This is what I was mostly referring to. Now it can be debated weather that amount should be higher or lower, but the way you try to paint the picture is that it really doesn't matter what the percent tax is the companies don't pay it anyway due to "fuzzy math".

Mulecreek painted a picture for you of how the coal is bought and paid for from the ground all the way to how it is used overseas. Do you dispute the way it was described?

Also I would have to go back and refresh my memory on the legalities of the "rule", but I am pretty sure it was just as described by mule. HAHA just because you quote one politician and give a article headline of a story it doesn't make it so. He11 most of them make a career of misrepresenting the truth.

Now all that being said, I would like to hear the answer to the original question asked of you. Are you against all oil, gas and mining on public lands. You answer the first time around was this... "Extraction should not be banned from public lands, but some areas should be exempted from the profiting of the few at the expense of the many... especially when they're not paying their agreed-upon amount anyway and are shoveling money into the wallets of the Republican Party that holds the key to public gates".

So here is the question. What areas should be exempt in your mind. Who decides how many is a few compared to many? Say a mine has 1,000 employees at its facility alone and those people support a community. Is that a few in your mind? So if "they" are paying their agreed-upon amount then it is ok or just a little better? And last but not least, if they shove money into the democrats pockets then that makes it ok? Sounds like not in my back yard argument to me....
 
You were right, I didn't read the entire thread, but I did feel as though I understood what I had read. So when being called out like that I thought I better read the whole thing incase I missed something, and ha guess what I did...

So one more question for you if you would like to answer it. Because I don't believe in killing babies does that mean to you I am easily manipulated? Also on the other side of that coin, those that do feel killing babies is a woman's right (you I presume) that makes those people free thinkers that are not easily manipulated by others?
 
Been going to bears ears for well over 20 years,absolutely love it. Some friends were there last week. Had several different 'treehugger' types ask them "where are the campgrounds? And are there public restrooms around here? Also do you guys know where all the artifacts are? We want to check them out. And the best of all, a whole herd of 'Hippies'partying and running around naked. Ever seen the aftermath of those kind of disasters. Thanks Obama!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-17 AT 10:59AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-22-17 AT 10:51?AM (MST)

>I said the "oil/mining companies" are
>required to pay a 12.5%
>"state and federal royalty". mulecreek
>claimed that was incorrect, but
>the actual royalty for oil,
>gas, and surface coal is
>12.5% as I stated (mulecreek
>was correct when referring to
>the underground coal royalty). Of
>said royalty, 50% goes to
>the State and the remaining
>is split between federal programs,
>as I alluded.
>
>mulecreek wrote, "State royalty rates differ
>by State and are typically
>equal to or lower than
>the Federal rate." Actual numbers
>are Texas - 25%; New
>Mexico and North Dakota -
>18.75%; Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and
>Montana charge 16.67%. In the
>western US, State rates are
>not typically equal to or
>lower than the Federal rate.
>

grizzly, the percentages you are referencing are for oil and gas, not coal. Coal royalty rates for Wyoming State land are currently running 12.5%. Trust me on this, I am not paying 16.67%. I believe State statute requires at least 12.5%. I don't know of any mines in Wyoming currently paying over 12.5% for State land leases. When I was mining in CO it was less than 12.5% for surface. A few years ago CO reduced rates on an UG mine to help keep the mine running. But given CO new found hatred for coal I doubt I could reach the same agreement with the State. New Mexico is 12.5% for surface, 8 for UG. Not certain on the other states but I would highly doubt that Texas is requiring 25% from a lignite mine. Texas is very open that royalty rates can and will vary according to deposit and mineral. Utah code is no less than 8%. I am fairly certain the Utah is 12.5% for surface and 8% for UG.

You also stated in an earlier post that Federal leasing rates have remained unchanged since 1920. This is untrue. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 was the point at which lease rates became 12.5% for surface and 8% for underground. Prior to that they were something like $0.05 per ton according to the 1920 law.

>mulecreek and I have a gentleman's
>disagreement on how royalties should
>be calculated, as I believe
>you could put the two
>smartest business economists in the
>world together and they could
>disagree on the accounting practices
>of royalties owed. What I
>think we can agree on
>is that the mineral companies
>do everything they can to
>limit their financial responsibility to
>the American citizen and use
>any tool in their arsenal
>to lower that payment (as
>do I when I meet
>with my accountant).

When you do that are you not paying your fair share? Are you limiting your financial responsibility? Are you using fuzzy math when you utilize the Tax Code? Are you playing games with your taxes? What politicians do you support and how deep into their pockets are you? Phrasing matters!
 
mulecreek, I figured you were a coal miner with the way you kept trying to take the discussion from oil/gas and direct it to underground coal... which is certainly not the most applicable form of resource extraction when referring to the Bears Ears area. It was obvious you have a pretty heavy bias in favor of coal mining, which I respect, but there aren't any current plans to mine for coal in the greater Bears Ears region... unlike oil/gas which is drilled virtually on the doorsteps of Bears Ears.

Everything I have said has been factually correct and I differentiated between surface coal, oil, and gas in my posts. If you want to pick nits over the difference in surface coal and underground coal roayalties... fine, I'll concede the underground coal rate is lower than everything else. All the numbers I have given are for surface coal, oil, and gas... in fact, in the paragraph before I mentioned that federal royalties haven't changed since the 1920's, which is true, I specifically mentioned oil companies. You then try and change it to coal and imply my post was incorrect even though surface coal is also currently 12.5%. That is disingenuous. Do you also want me to get into offshore drilling royalties, because they're different too? This is a broad based discussion that can't possibly be dealt with by the minutia of all natural resources in all scenarios. What I have posted is the most factual information, pertaining to the most products (oil, gas, surface coal), and is most applicable to the Bears Ears area.

Please refer to my Post 38. You will see that the main concern for Bears Ears due to geographic proximity to major oil/gas fields is oil/gas, not coal. I don't know of any major current oil finds in Bears Ears, but it is certainly possible in the future as there is already drilling in very close proximity to Bears Ears which could certainly expand in that direction. For comparison, are you aware that a new oil field was just found in West Texas that is three times larger than the Bakken? New technology is finding new oil fields every few months. Who's to say the pictures I posted in post 38 aren't the future of Bears Ears if it isn't protected today.

As to your tax code Red Herring, I direct my accountant to pay every cent that I owe and not a penny more. I suppose the oil/mining companies do too. That is why Trump changing the rules to give them a fuzzy math loophole applies. This loophole can be opened or closed, and what amounts to a "fair share" is completely open for interpretation... one person's "enough" is another persons "not enough". There is no way to settle that argument which is why I posted in post 65 that you and I have a gentleman's disagreement on that.

***On a side note, if I transferred my property from one entity that I control to another and then sold that property, I would have to pay taxes on both ends of the transaction. Which, after deducting for basis, would equal paying taxes on the higher sales price. Otherwise I would risk going to jail, so this really is a loophole that you and I don't get to exploit.***

I respect your opinions and posts and appreciate a lively discussion, which was hopefully informative to many. I'm just trying to stay on point here about Bears Ears, the payments from oil companies to politicians, the current state of disrepair of nearby oil fields, and the potential future of Bears Ears if we leave it in the hands of politicians who are padding their wallets from oil company donors. The fox is guarding the hen house on this one.

Grizzly
 
Grizzly,

Monument designation is simply more big government control of the land and all of the affected locals, grazing permittees and other land users usually either get the boot or the new regs make it very hard to operate. I can only speak for the Organ Mountain/Desert Peaks huge land grab by the enviros and is making it tough on everybody in SW NM. The Valles Caldera designation was definitely not the best choice for our citizens either. Forest Service management would have made that monument much better for sportsmen.

Bears Ears appears to be a huge land management grab by the Feds to put un-necessary restrictions on the land.

Our multiple use Agencies FS and BLM do a much better job for the people and that includes the hunters.

Better for the local economy? That is very questionable. We are constantly promised that the Mexican Gray Wolf will make the economy better here. Naught. Local communities are sick and tired of the heavy hand of the Federal Government.

I applaud the Trump Admistration for taking another look at especially all of Obama's designations. They were just more of the Federal reach into our local communities that depend on the natural resource for our living. Do you think the greens give a damn about us. Hell no!
 
>mulecreek, I figured you were a
>coal miner with the way
>you kept trying to take
>the discussion from oil/gas and
>direct it to underground coal...
>which is certainly not the
>most applicable form of resource
>extraction when referring to the
>Bears Ears area. It was
>obvious you have a pretty
>heavy bias in favor of
>coal mining, which I respect,
>but there aren't any current
>plans to mine for coal
>in the greater Bears Ears
>region... unlike oil/gas which is
>drilled virtually on the doorsteps
>of Bears Ears.
>
>Everything I have said has been
>factually correct and I differentiated
>between surface coal, oil, and
>gas in my posts. If
>you want to pick nits
>over the difference in surface
>coal and underground coal roayalties...
>fine, I'll concede the underground
>coal rate is lower than
>everything else. All the numbers
>I have given are for
>surface coal, oil, and gas...
>in fact, in the paragraph
>before I mentioned that federal
>royalties haven't changed since the
>1920's, which is true, I
>specifically mentioned oil companies. You
>then try and change it
>to coal and imply my
>post was incorrect even though
>surface coal is also currently
>12.5%. That is disingenuous. Do
>you also want me to
>get into offshore drilling royalties,
>because they're different too? This
>is a broad based discussion
>that can't possibly be dealt
>with by the minutia of
>all natural resources in all
>scenarios. What I have posted
>is the most factual information,
>pertaining to the most products
>(oil, gas, surface coal), and
>is most applicable to the
>Bears Ears area.
>

Everything I have stated has been in reference to coal. I never dipped into the oil pond. You are clearly jumping back and forth. I have no direct knowledge of oil and gas royalties, though I suppose I could read the same Center for Western Progress handout that you did and find out more about how oil and gas companies are ripping off the citizens of America. But to be clear since I am having a hard time following where you are going, the State royalties you stated in Post #65 do not apply to coal, regardless of mining method. Could be oil and gas, not sure but I know they are not coal.

>Please refer to my Post 38.
>You will see that the
>main concern for Bears Ears
>due to geographic proximity to
>major oil/gas fields is oil/gas,
>not coal. I don't know
>of any major current oil
>finds in Bears Ears, but
>it is certainly possible in
>the future as there is
>already drilling in very close
>proximity to Bears Ears which
>could certainly expand in that
>direction. For comparison, are you
>aware that a new oil
>field was just found in
>West Texas that is three
>times larger than the Bakken?

I am, I believe they are calling it the Cline Field.

>New technology is finding new
>oil fields every few months.
>Who's to say the pictures
>I posted in post 38
>aren't the future of Bears
>Ears if it isn't protected
>today.
>

Could be, and if that happened it would be a shame. But just because an area has gas/oil and is not under national Monument protections does not mean it has to look like that. The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

>As to your tax code Red
>Herring, I direct my accountant
>to pay every cent that
>I owe and not a
>penny more. I suppose the
>oil/mining companies do too. That
>is why Trump changing the
>rules to give them a
>fuzzy math loophole applies. This
>loophole can be opened or
>closed, and what amounts to
>a "fair share" is completely
>open for interpretation... one person's
>"enough" is another persons "not
>enough". There is no way
>to settle that argument which
>is why I posted in
>post 65 that you and
>I have a gentleman's disagreement
>on that.
>
>***On a side note, if I
>transferred my property from one
>entity that I control to
>another and then sold that
>property, I would have to
>pay taxes on both ends
>of the transaction. Which, after
>deducting for basis, would equal
>paying taxes on the higher
>sales price. Otherwise I would
>risk going to jail, so
>this really is a loophole
>that you and I don't
>get to exploit.***
>

Don't get me started on Taxes in regards to coal mining. Royalties and taxes are two separate and distinct things. Trust me the State and Feds are getting more than everyone's fair share in taxes when coal is taken out of the ground.

Individuals get plenty of tax deductions/benefits/loopholes that business does not and visa versa.

>I respect your opinions and posts
>and appreciate a lively discussion,
>which was hopefully informative to
>many. I'm just trying to
>stay on point here about
>Bears Ears, the payments from
>oil companies to politicians, the
>current state of disrepair of
>nearby oil fields, and the
>potential future of Bears Ears
>if we leave it in
>the hands of politicians who
>are padding their wallets from
>oil company donors. The fox
>is guarding the hen house
>on this one.
>
>Grizzly

Fair enough! I respect your opinions as well, even if they are wrong. ;)

You brought up "games" mining companies play in regards to royalties from public land mineral extraction in Post#55 and I thought I should try to inform you as well. Hopefully you can come away with a better understanding of how the vast majority of mining on public land takes place rather than professing propaganda as truth. Both sides of this equation do plenty of fear mongering without rational people adding to it.
 
mulecreek, just who are these rational people that you're referring to? Certainly none of us here on MM, I hope.

Rational does not live here!

DC
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20160909_161128.jpg
IMG_0106.jpeg
DSC_3359.JPG
301689C5-32C7-4EEF-92AC-A411D7C9CDF4.jpeg
IMG_7564.jpg
A332F146-5945-4D2E-ACF6-9FE9C1789E4D.jpeg
IMG_3337.jpeg
IMG_7657_20221129_140103.jpg
brianlatturner92618-11.jpg
A0E5725E-CA3A-4DEB-BE4E-F548C0453757.jpeg
africa_102.jpeg
Big Bull
Back
Top Bottom