Utah's New National Park?

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,581
Representative Chris Stewart has reintroduced his bill forming a new "Escalante Canyons National Park" in southern Utah.

Does anybody know which hunting units, if any, this would affect and how it would do so?


 
Here are the takeaways:

Election ploy to win last minute votes of “conservationists”

“Re-introduction”. It failed to pass last time and has a “slim” chance this time

Hunting would be allowed

Purely political.
 
Here are the takeaways:

Election ploy to win last minute votes of “conservationists”

“Re-introduction”. It failed to pass last time and has a “slim” chance this time

Hunting would be allowed

Purely political.
Stewart is in no danger on reelection, so I don't see that being part of it. Hunting is allowed, which is great... but what about access? Will there be entrance gates and fees to get in? Will roads be closed? What about ATV use? How will the increased traffic affect wildlife and the landscape as it is today?

Is the creation of Bears Ears (where hunting, grazing, current extraction permits, wood cutting were still allowed) really that different than the enhanced status level here inasmuch as how it changes use? Will there be Bears Ears-level outcry by Utahns against it?

I've hunted in Bears Ears and GSENM, but I really don't see how Escalante Canyons National Park is good for hunting in any way. Am I wrong?

And if the chance of successful passage is "slim" then why reintroduce it? He was already unsuccessful once, but brought it back anyway.

The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. It seems to be a pet project to me, I just don't know who he's trying to benefit.
 
Some kind of political maneuver seems the most logical explanation. Someone is seeking election this go round. Or maybe if presidents change it might be more likely to fly?. Who knows.
 
It's a play to keep environmentalists groups and Washington influence out of the decision making when it comes to the staircase. He is trying to get local input on land management. Escalante is basically a ghost town since the monument designation. From a hunting standpoint, the negative would be more tourists, but I don't believe any roads would be shut down. If anything the local leaders may want to open more roads that were shut down when the monument was created to increase access.
 
Escalante is basically a ghost town since the monument designation.
I have been going to Escalante regularly since long before the designation and I can tell you that's not even close to what I've seen.

The Escalante Chamber of Commerce also does not agree with the assessment that it's a ghost town and that the monument status hurt the economy. In fact, they feel it's helped the economy according to the letter they posted during the reduction talks.

Chamber President Suzanne Catlett said, “As business people who make a living in the Escalante Boulder region of Utah, we can tell you from firsthand experience that since the protection of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, our local economy in Escalante and Boulder has grown and is thriving.”
 
Ask the people who aren’t pimping tourism! Ask the folks who have lost their livelihood because of the BS caused by the monument. Or keep drinking your coolaid and pretend it’s all fine.
 
Ask the people who aren’t pimping tourism! Ask the folks who have lost their livelihood because of the BS caused by the monument. Or keep drinking your coolaid and pretend it’s all fine.
Who's drinking koolaid? I haven't seen anybody here say they supported it. I wondered why there wasn't outrage like with Bears Ears. I don't want more people down there, I liked it how it was over 20 years ago. But I don't think it's accurate to call it a "ghost town" from what I've seen with my own eyes and what the local Chamber of Commerce is saying.

Are the locals against Stewart's plan? I'm sure not seeing much about it here or anywhere else. He's the local Representative and he's pushing it. Why do they want more government land designations, which will only increase tourism, if it only helps the businesses that are "pimping" it?

Hunting is already allowed in GSENM so I'm not sure how this would help anything in that regard, but see many ways this could hinder public land hunting.
 
I have been going to Escalante regularly since long before the designation and I can tell you that's not even close to what I've seen.

The Escalante Chamber of Commerce also does not agree with the assessment that it's a ghost town and that the monument status hurt the economy. In fact, they feel it's helped the economy according to the letter they posted during the reduction talks.

Chamber President Suzanne Catlett said, “As business people who make a living in the Escalante Boulder region of Utah, we can tell you from firsthand experience that since the protection of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, our local economy in Escalante and Boulder has grown and is thriving.”
I’ve spent a lot of time in the area with locals, and I disagree. It may have brought out of state people in to make seasonal restaurants and guide services, but the people who have contribute to the economy 365 were pushed out. Here is a good article on the subject. https://www.cedarcityutah.com/news/...e-of-devastation-state-of-emergency-imminent/
The saw mill was shut down, grazing was cut, school enrollement went down, teachers and staff were let go.
 
Grizz, I get what your saying though. I bet tourism went up, but other businesses went to hell. Just depends what angle you view it on.

I was just stating that some of the local leaders want more say in the management of the land in their counties, and this is one way to do it. This is why Stewart is proposing it.
 
I’ve spent a lot of time in the area with locals, and I disagree. It may have brought out of state people in to make seasonal restaurants and guide services, but the people who have contribute to the economy 365 were pushed out. Here is a good article on the subject. https://www.cedarcityutah.com/news/...e-of-devastation-state-of-emergency-imminent/
The saw mill was shut down, grazing was cut, school enrollement went down, teachers and staff were let go.
Many of the ranchers sold their grazing rights at the time so that accounts for some of the decrease in grazing. I agree on the sawmill and it's regrettable. I have close friends in Escalante and Boulder and those that adapted will say they are better off today than before. It's definitely a different economy though, some consider that good and others don't. I'm mainly just trying to look at this through a hunting lens for MM.
 
Yeah, I get you. Other than extra visitation calling it a park, what are the negatives you see with it as it pertains to hunting?
 
Yeah, I get you. Other than extra visitation calling it a park, what are the negatives you see with it as it pertains to hunting?
Visitation is a gigantic one. Does anybody think hunting is going to be the same with tour buses lined up in the parking areas.

Will there be gates to access like at other Parks? How will we get in at 4am to start our hikes to the overlooks? Backcountry permits to overnight camp in the unit?

How will it affect habitat improvement projects?

Will animal translocations be allowed? Helicopter flights for sheep?

What about guzzler installation and maintenance?

Will certain areas be closed to rifle hunting for safety reasons?

Predator control? Can we kill lions for sheep populations? By what methods?

The proposal calls for local input, which locals? The ranchers or the tourism locals? What about a decade from now?

I'm just not seeing really anything positive for hunting and a lot of potential for negatives.

And if the legacy local population doesn't want increased tourism (or thinks GSENM is bad) then I don't see how this is better.
 
Last edited:
In the proposal it says the DWR will continue managing wildlife in the same way it always has, including predator control.
“Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of the State of Utah with respect to the management of fish, wildlife and predators in the State.

I’m assuming guzzlers can still be placed in the area, although I believe calf creek flows through what would be the “park”, so maybe there isn’t need for any.

The Management Council shall be composed of 7 members appointed not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act as follows:
(1) One individual from the Department of In- terior, appointed by the President.
(2) Five individuals, appointed by the President in consultation with the Congressional delegation from the State of Utah and the Governor of Utah, who shall represent the following:
(A) Two from the Garfield County, Utah, Board of Commissioners.
(B) Two from the Kane County, Utah, Board of Commissioners.
(C) One Utah State Legislator rep- resenting Kane County, Garfield County, or both.
(3) One at-large representative appointed by
the President.

I’m not 100% sure, but I believe the “park and preserve” section of the designation would be the calf creek falls area, but I could be mistaken. They don’t explain it in the proposal. If that’s the case, there are already tons of people that go through there and not much hunting to be had as far as I know of? Is anyone else familiar if there is deer and elk hunting to be had in that general area?

I do believe another “park” would bring foreign tourists in, which would significantly add to the impact made my tourism. I personally wouldn’t want to pack a deer off a trail packed with people like you see in Bryce or Zion.
 
I agree a lot with what you're saying. I just don't necessarily trust that the representatives chosen a decade from now would make the same decisions that we think would be made today. As to your quote below regarding wildlife management...

“Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of the State of Utah with respect to the management of fish, wildlife and predators in the State.

... Here's a quote from the Bears Ears Establishment Proclamation from President Obama...

"Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management."

We were told over and over that Bears Ears would close hunting. Why the difference today? If the trust is because of the Adminstration in control today, I can assure you that won't always be the case. The local demographics could change as well... Moab used to be a mining town and look at it now.

This seems to be a cat better left in the bag as I can't conceive of a way to be confident this protects public land access and hunting in the area.
 
Last edited:
I’m not 100% sure, but I believe the “park and preserve” section of the designation would be the calf creek falls area, but I could be mistaken. They don’t explain it in the proposal. If that’s the case, there are already tons of people that go through there and not much hunting to be had as far as I know of?
They're not clear on the boundaries, but if it extends south of there towards Egypt, Coyote Gulch, and Stevens Arch, you're definitely getting into sheep habitat.
 
They're not clear on the boundaries, but if it extends south of there towards Egypt, Coyote Gulch, and Stevens Arch, you're definitely getting into sheep habitat.
Yeah for sure, I would like to see maps before I supported the designation of a park.
 
We were told over and over that Bears Ears would close hunting. Why the difference today? If the trust is because of the Adminstration in control today, I can assure you that won't always be the case. The local demographics could change as well... Moab used to be a mining town and look at it now.
I agree, if Trump can shrink a monument, future administrations could definitely remove hunting from the new park.
 
I hate to be "that guy", but why, if this is public ground funded through the US treasury, does the commissioners from Kane and Garfield county deserve any more say than those from Cache county?

I see a congressman who this year was against funding for land maintenancE (GAOA), now trying to create a park. Wonder how the maintainance is going to work, id be interested to hear his answer.

This is a Utah republican, who has those "Utah Values" who is trying to split hairs. You can't believe in "transfer", and create parks. Why isn't he leading a fight to have it turned over to the state? Where's his convictions? Where is his backbone? Where is his "stand up to DC" big boy pants? Utah is sitting on a warchest of cash and has attornies on retainer to fight for "transfer", here's his chance. His chance to hand Utah back its own land. Oh, and the cost of all that comes with it. I guess huge tax increases in his district to pay for "Utah Land" aint a real good campaign slogan?

Another big mouthed Utah Republican. Not an ounce of small government, local control in any of them.
 
if this is public ground funded through the US treasury, does the commissioners from Kane and Garfield county deserve any more say than those from Cache county?
That's a good point.

I see a clear path to significant negative impact. The new park increases tourism and tourism-based industry and the "locals" become something they're not right now.

Imagine if Arches (1929) and Canyonlands (1964) were made into National Parks with the rule that Grand County Commissioners would get a say in management such as grazing, roads, and hunting. What do you bet the decisions back then, when it was an oil and mining town, would look much different than those made by the much more liberal leaders today? What makes anybody believe the Commissioners in 2050 will be the ranching/hunting folks they are today... and a big reason for the shift will be the very Park we're talking about.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because the Park is the reason the demographics changed in the first place, and those changes are what altered the use of the Park. They're sort of building their own gallows.

I'm still a little shocked that there really isn't a movement by the locals to stop this when the outcry about both Bears Ears and GSENM was so great.

Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Not being a local I can only speak for me.

I believe Obama dropped bears ears as a smack back to Utah and its conservative votes. He knew he, nor any other Dem had a chance to win Utah, so he could curry environmentalist favor with little risk

We all saw how Clinton and Obama didnt even have balls enough to show up in State to make announcement s on GSEM or BE.

That rubbed me wrong. Im sure it rubbed locals even more.

But by now ID assume the newness is gone, and the reality that neither will ever go away regardless of what the signs say(park or monument) so the emotion is tamped somewhat.


Fun fact. I wanted to email Stewart about the hypocrisy of being a ""transfer" advocate but creating national parks. If you try to through his page, it asks your zip first. If your not in his district, it wont let you email him.
 
You guys are confusing me. And not being a local, I don't have a dog in this fight. But I have a monument in my backyard that didn't used to be there.

First, there is a huge difference between Monuments and Natl Parks in terms of hunting. For the most part you can say that hunting in prohibited in Natl Parks, but not Monuments.

In both cases historical uses are re-evaluated, and in most cases extractive practices are never more.

The most noticeable changes that most of you will see will be the revised travel management plans. Which is really a list of access closures. In exchange, they will trade you a bladed road to a parking lot. That's what happened in my hood.

In terms of hunter opportunities, this is my ranking (USFS omitted because there arent any more, but the conversion to more restrictive uses remains a risk): Blm = ok, Monument = worse, Park = worst.

Whether a slot canyon in slickrock country is the hill to die on seems to be the question.
 
Last edited:
This is a Utah republican, who has those "Utah Values" who is trying to split hairs. You can't believe in "transfer", and create parks. Why isn't he leading a fight to have it turned over to the state? Where's his convictions? Where is his backbone? Where is his "stand up to DC" big boy pants? Utah is sitting on a warchest of cash and has attornies on retainer to fight for "transfer", here's his chance. His chance to hand Utah back its own land. Oh, and the cost of all that comes with it. I guess huge tax increases in his district to pay for "Utah Land" aint a real good campaign slogan?

Another big mouthed Utah Republican. Not an ounce of small government, local control in any of them.

I’d submit that what you are actually seeing in this is that the land transfer debate is much more nuanced than many make it out to be in their black and white election slogan type statements.
 
I’d submit that what you are actually seeing in this is that the land transfer debate is much more nuanced than many make it out to be in their black and white election slogan type statements.


Sure. Repubs want to "control" the land, the management, the policies. They just dont have the courage of their convictions to pass along the massive tax increases it would involve to actually "own" it.


Or in other words, they are small gov, anti fed, EXCEPT when it comes to paying for it, then suddenly NATIONAL parks are a good idea.
 
I thought discussing politics was verboten? I recommend moving this thread to the political forum..... oh wait:unsure:
 
LOL Anytime they made a promise to You, YOU need to look at what that other hand is doing. Just ask any Indian if they trust the Govt.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom