Save The Bears Ears Crap....

cantkillathing

cantkillathing

Very Active Member
Messages
1,475
Im wondering how many of you have been following this save the bears ears agenda. The environmental and bureaucrats that are pushing an agenda to turn the elkridge unit into a national monument. I dont know if its too late but help to voice against it would be good.
 
Why would NM status be a bad thing? Not trying to stir the pot, I honestly don't know much about the area.
 
>Why would NM status be a
>bad thing? Not trying
>to stir the pot, I
>honestly don't know much about
>the area.

Some NM do not allow hunting. They do not allow shed hunting and they virtually lock people out unless you are a back packers.

Also due to higher regulations etc. It makes the land a lot less accessible to locals for economic growth etc. Look at Dinosaur NM. No hunting, No shed collecting, Very Limited access, and ultimately the surrounding communities have no say at all n management issues. Virtually impossible to hold any sort of gathering in the Monument like a 3D shoot or.....

Then look at issue with Colorado National Monument and the trouble that happened when the park officials decided to limit vehicle size in the monument putting off water supply truck and propane truck to people who lived up the road.

Ultimately the designation moves away fro multi use and limits virtually any activity on the land.
 
The problem with NM status is its already protected by BLM and forest service status. You are allowed to camp and hunt, and run cattle, gather some wood with permits ect. You already cant drill, mine, and other things. This will restrict the access even more. More and More restrictions eventually locking us out to only use designated trails to hike, and designated camping with a fee.
 
Hunting on a NM is a special rule started when Clinton was declaring monuments to make them more acceptable.....it is a simple rule that can be lined out at anytime by the current or future administrators.....
 
>Hunting on a NM is a
>special rule started when Clinton
>was declaring monuments to make
>them more acceptable.....it is a
>simple rule that can be
>lined out at anytime by
>the current or future administrators.....
>

Yeah but if they limit your access to where you cant hardly get in there it does not matter if they decide to allow hunting. Also if they can simply allow hunting in a NM then you can also take it away.

As mentioned the NM status limits thing way to far and kicks out a wide range of users.
 
I'm in it Thirty years/Twenty GAWD-DAMNED Points Years!

I Will Hunt there Some Year!

Rather it be a NM or not!

I'm Too FRICKEN Old to Invest another 30 Years into another Unit!

Can't Imagine Hunting the Whole SOB All by Myself!

Maybe it Ain't a Bad Idea!:D











[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-16 AT 09:51PM (MST)[p]I wholeheartedly support a monument designation for the bears ears and any other location for that matter. If you have a minute to spend in case your curious as to why I may feel this way and don't mind my reasoning being in the form of what could be considered a wacko leftist rant then read on:
I have lived in Utah my whole life, traveling all the while through what I consider some the most geographically diverse and beautiful landscape on earth. Simply stated, you just cant find what Utah has to offer anywhere else. From the southern red-rock to the west desert and Wasatch mountains I consider every part extraordinary.
Although vast I find it becoming harder to enjoy the state like I used to because of a constant human presence that seems to be steadily pressing further and further into the once silent and unmarred wild-lands that Utah is famous for. Besides robust development occurring along the Wasatch front from Santaquin to Logan, the state still appears big and largely undeveloped. Nevertheless as many may attest, it has become hard to escape the whine of a ATV, the roads of some gas or oil field, the pollution of a power plant, the crisscrossing miles of barbed wire, or the trash and pillaging of a group of partyers even miles from the city hub. At least it seems to me that within recent years seeking a true wilderness experience anywhere within the vicinity of a road will inevitably result in failure. With the explosive population growth along with the advent of new utv's and outdoor machines grinding through every corner of the state how could it not?

New gas and oil fields, tar sand development, testing range expansion, ski resort invasions and pushes for release of federal lands seem to be at least a weekly news story as a little more of wild Utah is sentenced to destruction.
It is anticipated that the state will double its population again by 2050, places like bears ears will only receive more pressure, losing a little more of its unique heritage each year. If a national monument designation can preserve a wild place in its most natural state, then Im all for it.
My most profoundly personal experiences have come not in the commotion of human invention, but rather in those moments of startling realization that I am completely alone under the sky with nothing to hear but a desert wind.
For myself the silent places are much more than just barren grounds waiting to be exploited for whatever economical resources they may contain, rather the worth of the lands to me is that they remain a dwindling source of true spiritual reconnect experienced by man ever since "he departed again into a mountain himself alone."
Yes, develop land, grow economies, build cities, become prosperous, but for God's sake leave some it alone; untouched and unmarred by human progress to serve as a reminder for those who ever have occasion to wonder what it was like for the Indian to sit on the silent mesa while he crafted his arrows, or for the explorer who crested a mountain ridge to see nothing but the wide expanse of a new juniper valley, or even for our own grandfathers who stared at the milky way and wondered over the mysteries of life.
In my opinion, whats left of the wild-lands must be preserved at all costs, even if it means the loss of hunting opportunities, energy extraction, or grazing rights. Once its gone, its awfully hard to get back. I speak as one who has taken a backpack into areas the government has restricted vehicle access, including Escalante. After a night under the unpolluted star filled sky I find it a wonder that anyone could really be bitter that the coal industry was blocked out and all the natural treasures of the area remain unspoiled.
As for Bears Ears the area truly is remarkable and does contain one of the highest densities of Indian artifacts in the world. I have personally seen it being looted, degraded, and otherwise abused. I support stricter protection for the artifacts and the vanishing silence that surrounds them all the while recognizing the need to develop resources but in a much more responsible way, omitting areas that are undoubtedly unique and irreplaceable.
 
>>Hunting on a NM is a
>>special rule started when Clinton
>>was declaring monuments to make
>>them more acceptable.....it is a
>>simple rule that can be
>>lined out at anytime by
>>the current or future administrators.....
>>
>
>Yeah but if they limit your
>access to where you cant
>hardly get in there it
>does not matter if they
>decide to allow hunting. Also
>if they can simply allow
>hunting in a NM then
>you can also take it
>away.
>
>As mentioned the NM status limits
>thing way to far and
>kicks out a wide range
>of users.

duh......
 
i agree with everything Cyrus said. If all the southern tards weren't wanting to destroying everything with their F'N ATVs and cows there would be no need for monuments and road closures.
 
The majority of residents in San Juan county are Native Americans. The vast majority of organizations representing them were the prime movers on NW designation, they took the proposal to Obama. A large majority of county residents want the NM. I support their proposal for improved protection and management of my federal lands in the Sacrosanct Kingdom of UT.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/bears-e...r-to-reality?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
 
LAST EDITED ON May-05-16 AT 01:26PM (MST)[p]Thats a bunch of crap Elk duds, the majority do not want it and yes the majority is Native American probably 53% and 47% non native. and San Juan Commission Benally who is Native American and represents her culture and constituents do not want this. Mark Maryboy was beat out of commission by Commission Benally. I have yet to speak with anyone that is for it that lives in san Juan county area. They should have a better vote on the issue.

http://reagangirl.com/navajo-county-commissioner-makes-passionate-case-against-bears-ears-land-grab/
 
"Bunch of crap?" Guess you missed this:

Though the pushback was coming from just one of seven Navajo chapters in San Juan County, some headlines played it as if outside forces were imposing their monument proposal on universally reticent ?local, grassroots Navajo.?

...in the article I cited. The "grassroots Navajo" language was prominent in the article RE Benally you named, but then she wrote it herself. How do you tell when your councilperson is lying? their lips are moving.

Further, my support for more federal protection of federal lands in good ol' UT is based on my own experience of state residents' and politicians' flagrant disregard for federal laws/rules on federal lands. Federal land belongs to us all, even if it is surrounded by UT. Great Old Broads, SUWA, Sierra: all Americans, exercising their legal right to advocate for protection of their property from others who flaunt their disregard for federal authority over federal land. In this case, I stand w them.
 
Any distinction that begins with "National" is usually not a good thing. The federal government almost always overregulate to the point of stupidity.
 
>Any distinction that begins with "National"
>is usually not a good
>thing. The federal government almost
>always overregulate to the point
>of stupidity.


and Utarded mormon republican politics don't?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-05-16 AT 07:00PM (MST)[p]I believe everyone can have their cake and eat it too if the right compromise is reached. Rob Bishops "grand bargain" certainly is not it. Any monument designation in my eyes will just help to negate the inevitable effects brought to the state by Bishop, Herbert and the other crooks that howl with every move Obama makes to set land aside for preservation.
 
This is such a hard issue for me, because I don't like either of the options. It's much like the presidential election this year, only I think I will be able to determine the lesser of the evils in the national monument discussion. No chance of that between Hillary and her twin brother Donald.

While NMs do carry some restrictions, I'd like to see people hunt this unit when it is privately owned or dotted with oil and gas rigs. I strongly dislike what the federal government has become and their over-reach in just about everything. But state ownership of the lands scare the pizz out of me with what the state will do.

A lot of tough decisions to make on this one.
 
I am sorry, but the oil rigs and and gas rigs are not coming, this land is already federally ran by BLM and USFS, its not going to happen.
Elkduds your right when politicians open mouth then they are not telling the truth also referencing Mark Maryboy in that category.
The reason there are gas and oil rigs on the Navajo nation as we speak is because they sold them the rights, they wanted them, they collected from them, and at any point they could get rid of them, but the money speaks and they are staying.
There is a small national monument around the Bears Ears as we speak, its the Natural Bridges Monument. I would like to ask any Native American right not to go in that area and collect wood, gather ceremonial items, etc., and lets see what happens when they do. Go ahead and test the waters right now before it happens.
 
>I am sorry, but the oil
>rigs and and gas rigs
>are not coming, this land
>is already federally ran by
>BLM and USFS, its not
>going to happen.
>Elkduds your right when politicians open
>mouth then they are not
>telling the truth also referencing
>Mark Maryboy in that category.
>
>The reason there are gas and
>oil rigs on the Navajo
>nation as we speak is
>because they sold them the
>rights, they wanted them, they
>collected from them, and at
>any point they could get
>rid of them, but the
>money speaks and they are
>staying.
>There is a small national monument
>around the Bears Ears as
>we speak, its the Natural
>Bridges Monument. I would
>like to ask any Native
>American right not to go
>in that area and collect
>wood, gather ceremonial items, etc.,
>and lets see what happens
>when they do. Go ahead
>and test the waters right
>now before it happens.


Easy cant!

And Never Say Never!

I Don't wanna see it Happen any more than You do!

But I Can Show you a Few Area's Invaded By Drilling!

And Yes they are on the BLM!

You Boys down South gonna make any more Stands against the Over-Reach?

You'll Be OK as long as you're not the Leader/Commissioner!:D

I Was Thinking if You'd Start an Open Hunt for a Limited Few on the SJ I'd Participate,but I just wanna be a Hunter,I'll let You Organize the Ordeal & You can be the Boss!:D











[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
I agree with cant, I have not talked to anyone in Monticello of Blanding that thinks a NM is a good thing. Native or non native and including myself.
 
cantkillathing,

So you're suggesting no oil and gas operations take place on national forest or BLM land?

And what if Utah developers, or, I mean, Utah citizens (sarcasm intended...) get their way and the state gets control. Does the state have a history of selling and leasing off its land and water, cutting off the general public?

Like I said, I absolutely hate both options here. So I have to decide which one most likely protects my view of public lands. Not an easy choice!
 
I don't think the state should own it. I think BLM and USFS should manage the ground in the way it is intended for. Get rid of their law authority and put them back on the task of managing good healthy habitat for wildlife and cattle. Manage the springs and water. Manage fuel reduction. Manage replanting of crucial plants. Manage the deadfall in areas. Clean up in healthy forest areas. Basically do their jobs.
 
>I don't think the state should
>own it. I think BLM
>and USFS should manage the
>ground in the way it
>is intended for. Get rid
>of their law authority and
>put them back on the
>task of managing good healthy
>habitat for wildlife and cattle.
> Manage the springs and
>water. Manage fuel reduction. Manage
>replanting of crucial plants. Manage
>the deadfall in areas. Clean
>up in healthy forest areas.
>Basically do their jobs.

Hey cant?

Did You participate in the ATV Ride?












[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
For the Monument:
Why, I hunt the grandstaircase NM already, sheds, deer. keeps the development out.
Second: If you think the state will not exploit those lands with a land grab you are wrong.
I have hunted the rangecreek area for 20 years and this is a perfect example of what will happen if the state gets their way with public land. When the State got its hands on The Waldo Wilcox Property they locked it up, restricted access. you cannot even camp on the blm that is in the bottom of the canyon. All the Public School Trust lands that allowed access to hard to reach public areas were bought up by large oil companies. thus forcing the general public out.
 
>No I didn't participate in ATV
>ride. I have told you
>that. Don't even own one.
>

Sorry cant!

Guess I Forgot!

There must only be 2 People in the World that don't Own ATV's!












[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
Any one that thinks national monuments and wilderness areas are a good thing is seriously lacking judgement IMO.
It is rules and regulations that are unnecessary and severely limiting to many people.

I just can't help but shake my head that true hunters are pro monuments etc. I think they really need to open their eyes to what is and will happen.

I really don't want to argue back and forth because I know I won't change minds but I can tell you all the antis are winning with these moves.
You may say oh bull shiz I can still hunt it etc. but watch as they close and restrict little things more and more it's a snowball effect give them an inch they will take a mile.

So be careful what you wish for and just remember one day you won't be able to hunt these areas either because your body will break down and not allow it or they will continue to shut and restrict areas.
You may think it's great because it keeps people out but just wait til you are the one on the outside looking in. Also remember it's public land and it's supposed to be for all not
Just selfish hunters and backpackers. There is no reason disabled people and old people shouldn't get to enjoy these areas. As well as kicking people off that have grazed livestock for generations on it. People that are fortunate enough to be a 4th or 5th generation rancher etc. if you want solitude and no one hunting an area it's pretty simple go buy a chunk of your own land to hunt and restrict what you want but don't use your selfish reasons to kick other people off public land that is just as much theirs as it is yours because it will be YOU one day that get shafted.
Don't be naive and selfish , open your eyes. Put your selfishness aside and do what's best for all not just you.
 
>>No I didn't participate in ATV
>>ride. I have told you
>>that. Don't even own one.
>>
>
>Sorry cant!
>
>Guess I Forgot!
>
>There must only be 2 People
>in the World that don't
>Own ATV's!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA
>SEE
>THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
>[/font]
>
>
After your tune ups I am surprised it is not more.

?If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.? John Adams
 
Yes I just love sharing the great outdoors with chinese tourists and power chair riders. Lets be honest, only a tiny percentage of Utah is roadless or restricts vehicle travel to a high degree. Why not set aside whats left to remain as wild as possible? There is still the vast majority of public land accessable to all levels of mobility, does every acre need to be designed to accomidate the disabled and elderly? When Im to old to backpack or venture into a roadless interior I am still very certain I will not want roads blazed through it just so I can experience it from some new asphalt pathway. For some reason just the fact that wilderness still exists is a great comfort and solace to me even if i can't experience it first hand, somehow it makes life a little richer knowing that somewhere there is still wild country.
I agree that bears ears is most certainly public land and belongs to all Americans. Not just me, or the ranchers who run their cows on it. Everyone should have a say and I respect and understand the opinions of those who are opposed to a nm but I still am very much in favor of restricting disturbance when it comes to places like escalante or bears ears and will continue to advocate for it. I believe the true selfish tragedy will come when future generations look back and realize what was lost if we do nothing to save what remains of the wilderness now.

"A man on foot or horseback will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than motorized tourists can in a hundred miles. -Edward Abbey
 
>Any one that thinks national monuments
>and wilderness areas are a
>good thing is seriously lacking
>judgement IMO.
>It is rules and regulations that
>are unnecessary and severely limiting
>to many people.
>
>I just can't help but shake
>my head that true hunters
>are pro monuments etc. I
>think they really need to
>open their eyes to what
>is and will happen.
>
>I really don't want to argue
>back and forth because I
>know I won't change minds
>but I can tell you
>all the antis are winning
>with these moves.
>You may say oh bull shiz
>I can still hunt it
>etc. but watch as they
>close and restrict little things
>more and more it's a
>snowball effect give them an
>inch they will take a
>mile.
>
>So be careful what you wish
>for and just remember one
>day you won't be able
>to hunt these areas either
>because your body will break
>down and not allow it
>or they will continue to
>shut and restrict areas.
>You may think it's great because
>it keeps people out but
>just wait til you are
>the one on the outside
>looking in. Also remember it's
>public land and it's supposed
>to be for all not
>
>Just selfish hunters and backpackers. There
>is no reason disabled people
>and old people shouldn't get
>to enjoy these areas. As
>well as kicking people off
>that have grazed livestock for
>generations on it. People that
>are fortunate enough to be
>a 4th or 5th generation
>rancher etc. if you want
>solitude and no one hunting
>an area it's pretty simple
>go buy a chunk of
>your own land to hunt
>and restrict what you want
>but don't use your selfish
>reasons to kick other people
>off public land that is
>just as much theirs as
>it is yours because it
>will be YOU one day
>that get shafted.
>Don't be naive and selfish ,
> open your eyes. Put
>your selfishness aside and do
>what's best for all not
>just you.


Thoex let me clue you in on a little secret, life's a b!tch then you die.
So we won't be able to hunt places we used to when we were younger, BFD! Cry me a river. What do you want, every mountain range to be wheel chair accessible?
 
The whole idea of a Bear's Ears NM stinks to high heavens.

I love the Bear's Ears area the way it is. It is one of my favorite places on earth. I really love hunting there when me or someone in my family draws a tag. It is crazy that I have had actual nightmares, several times, of going there and finding fast food joints and motels all along the road in our most favorite area along the top of Elk Ridge, even though that could never happen in real life.

I think there is plenty of protection for the area now. With the present small NM located there and the extensive Dark Canyon Wilderness area. The part that is not already NM or wilderness is almost all Forest Service and BLM. Without the Wilderness designation, there would be a lot less visitors and traffic there. The wilderness area sucks tree huggers into the area like a magnet. But when they get there, even the serious tree huggers mostly take a look at it from the road, and say, "we don't want to go down there". A NM designation would suck in tourists in much greater numbers. The next thing you know they would want a paved road all the way from the highway south of the Bear's Ears to the highway on the north end by Newspaper Rock.

The area needs no more protection or any additional attention to draw in the crowds. Obama just wants his name to go down in infamous history the way Clinton did with the Grand Staircase. What a pair of jerks.

Just remember that being able to hunt on a NM is the exception, not the rule. A NM designation would most likely eliminate hunting there. If not now, in the future. Then it would be good for nothing but sight seeing, which Utah already has plenty of.
 
I've been following this proposal closely from the beginning, studied the documentation until my eyes bled and I've talked face-to-face with a lot of folks on both sides. There's a much bigger picture here that deserves more than knee-jerk reactions. But that picture can't be seen by looking through partisan goggles whether the lenses are tinted red or blue.

Make no mistake, whatever does or doesn't happen in the next couple of years, these lands will soon see historic changes. Unfortunately, keeping them as they have been isn't an option. Same holds true for most of Utah's public lands.

While there have been land management disputes in the area for at least 30 years, there wouldn't be a monument proposal right now if not for Rob Bishop's PLI which provoked the tribes. In turn, Bishop's PLI was motivated by Utah's public lands lawsuit. It's also important to note that a NM designation cannot be undone; it can only be upgraded. So if the state of Utah was somehow successful in gaining control of our nation's lands (through the courts or through Congress) the state would have to honor the NM designation and continue to manage these lands accordingly.

In a recent public meeting, RMEF called on hunters and anglers to take a more active role in politics. I completely agree. While a forum discussion like this is all well and good, it's just sitting in the stands - not playing on the field. As the game continues, it's hard not to notice how many diverse players have taken a position and gotten involved, one way or another. A historic coalition of tribes, state and congressional representatives, every environmental group you ever heard of, Utah veterans and even the Sutherland Institute.

So where are the folks who have a bigger stake in the outcome of the game than anybody? Where are the boys in camo?
 
Right here on MM!!! Complaining!!

If only half of hunters would get involved politically with something as simple as sending an email to a legislator, the results could be awesome. Sadly, less than 10% will...
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

D5E9842C-449E-40B2-A552-3F0D70CA6585.jpeg
IMG_3710 (1)J.jpg
IMG_2249.jpeg
Neat Buck
2B892EAD-5E8D-4330-9AB7-108897EBEC69.jpeg
84581.jpeg
IMG_2296.jpeg
20190917_184938.jpg
Screenshot_20220222-101151.png
1608184034684.jpeg
IMG_3695.jpeg
IMG_0804.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom