Another Natl Monument in Utah !!

[FatChance]

Originally Posted by doc_ricketts

A little history in case anybody missed it:
http://www.twowheelmania.com/2011/06...-lands-policy/

Thanks, Doc. Since this would require an Executive Order, it sounds like there is nothing to worry about and this is all just a false alarm...

[dmac1]

Originally Posted by FatChance

Not a single person, as far as I could tell, has said they wanted the monument to be put in place anywhere in this thread. Nice red herring. The group behind the push, Sierra Club, SUWA or any such group doesn't matter at all if the President will not sign the Executive order.

My issue is if someone voted for someone they think might go ahead and sign such an executive order to create this National Monument or not. I did not vote for someone I think would actually do such a thing. Did you? Again, if someone doesn't think their guy would do something like this, they probably don't have much to be worried about. If they do think he would, was the rest of the stuff they got for their vote worth it?

I smell a troll and suggest you quit trying to make this into a political arguement with everyone. It just may be an important issue and yes wzd1a said he couldn't wait for the closure to happen. Looking at it again, he was likely tongue in cheek.

Thanks for trying to drag me down to your level, but it ain't happenin. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Pariahtize]

Originally Posted by FatChance

THIS has probably been in the works for four years and is a transparent repayment to one of his biggest constituent groups now that the second term is a done deal and he doesn't have to face re-election. Does the timing of THIS just seem coincidental? THIS is a consequence whether you recognize it for what it is or not. It would have been easier to prevent THIS from happening a couple weeks ago than stopping THIS from happening going forward, but the horse is out of the barn. Only his signature is required (congress doesn't have a say in the matter of an Executive Order) so there isn't much to stop him now that his final election is in the past.

Look, there's just no doubt that if this passes thru, it's because of who is in the office (Prez).
Doesn't exactly help us now, but we can still fight this and make our contacts, and voices heard to those with the strings, and those who support this retardation. . . .
BO is going to push the envelope in many ways during his last term.
Hang on, and be ready to feign shock when he does. ()

[doc_ricketts]

Originally Posted by FatChance

Thanks, Doc. Since this would require an Executive Order, it sounds like there is nothing to worry about and this is all just a false alarm...

If you had bothered to read the article then you would have noted this:
"The move was largely met with outrage and controversy, as it seemed to be a blatant attempt to ignore the legislative process. Fortunately, the backlash was such that the order never went anywhere. In fact, President Obama’s April signing of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution, essentially a temporary budget agreement, included specific language blocking the Bureau of Land Management from instituting the policy."

Which shows that with the outrage from the wheeler community, the Pres signed the CR that blocked BLM from instituting a full roadless designation. Now what are we as ADVers missing as 'part of the community;? And what are you missing?

[dmac1]

Update on my contact with New Belgium Brewing (I selected them as one of my 20 contacts on Sunday because I like to enjoy a Fat Tire from time to time).

Anyway, they largely provided the response that was published earlier, but with a few more details. Subsequent to that, I responded back and provided some facts per the BRC and I also offered to provide some more info from my (our) point of view. The gentleman I was in contact with expressed a willingness to review the information and possibly discuss things further within the company.

Anyway, I was glad to hear that they would at least take a look at things from our vantage point.

[enduro-ince]

Originally Posted by FatChance

..... If they do think he would, was the rest of the stuff they got for their vote worth it?

Dale, I love riding...Like I REALLY love riding. I go as often as I can and I go as far off the beaten path as I can. It makes me very happy. But if you think I'd vote for a presidential candidate based entirely on how it "might" affect my riding opportunities you are high. I happen to think the presidents job entails more important things than just where I can ride my dirtbike. Besides, he hasn't, and I seriously have my doubts that he will, sign anything like this. ITs too big, its too pricey and Utah senators are strictly opposed.

Thats all I got, this thread has/had? potential. I appreciate the heads up on this!

[dmac1]

Part of a respionse I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------
We have not endorsed the SUWA proposal that would close roads in the region. This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area.

I am familiar with the BLM plans for the region, as I served for 8 years on the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council. And the problem is that recreation concerns simply are not addressed at the level you might assume. While recreation areas are identified in the resource management plan, this designation does not provide any protection. For example, there are lots of dispersed campsites in the region that have absolutely no protection. So members of the public, or outfitters (edit), could show up and find a drill rig in those spots and there would be little or no warning from the BLM. Already, you can hear pumps and see lights from the campground at Deadhorse Point.

I am not against resource extraction, and there are some 5 million acres surrounding the area we identified that are targeted for tar sands, oil shale, potash, uranium, and oil and gas. Our county needs the mineral lease money from these activities, but it also needs the much larger tax revenues from all the visitors the outdoor industry brings to Moab. Our company and all the letter signers are open to other solutions--but we are committed to finding a way to protect the recreation economy around Canyonlands National Park.

Many of the folks that have contacted me are under the false impression that this is about closing roads, or they simply hate the federal government and do not trust them. But the interesting thing is that we have heard nothing from the oil and gas industry. They know the system favors them and they are standing back and watching the motorized and non-motorized recreation communities waste all our energy talking to each other, when we really should be united---not to stop oil and gas, but to save a few places for recreation.

[FatChance]

Originally Posted by doc_ricketts

If you had bothered to read the article then you would have noted this:
"The move was largely met with outrage and controversy, as it seemed to be a blatant attempt to ignore the legislative process. Fortunately, the backlash was such that the order never went anywhere. In fact, President Obama’s April signing of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution, essentially a temporary budget agreement, included specific language blocking the Bureau of Land Management from instituting the policy."

Which shows that with the outrage from the wheeler community, the Pres signed the CR that blocked BLM from instituting a full roadless designation. Now what are we as ADVers missing as 'part of the community;? And what are you missing?

Doc, I read the article and am missing nothing, but thanks for the condescending attitude. I said that we have nothing to worry about because the "Pres signed the CR that blocked BLM from instituting a full roadless designation". Isn't that what the article said? That is how I understood it. If he has blocked roadless designations because of the backlash in 2011 from the wheeler community, then the new National Monument would not be approved or get a roadless designation because of that and everyone can continue to ride there. That would make this a false alarm that no one needs to worry about. I think that is good news and why I thanked you for the link. What are you missing?

[FatChance]

Originally Posted by dmac1

I smell a troll

You can smell all you want.

[enduro-ince]

Originally Posted by dmac1

Part of a respionse I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------
We have not endorsed the SUWA proposal that would close roads in the region. This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area.

I am familiar with the BLM plans for the region, as I served for 8 years on the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council. And the problem is that recreation concerns simply are not addressed at the level you might assume. While recreation areas are identified in the resource management plan, this designation does not provide any protection. For example, there are lots of dispersed campsites in the region that have absolutely no protection. So members of the public, or outfitters (edit), could show up and find a drill rig in those spots and there would be little or no warning from the BLM. Already, you can hear pumps and see lights from the campground at Deadhorse Point.

I am not against resource extraction, and there are some 5 million acres surrounding the area we identified that are targeted for tar sands, oil shale, potash, uranium, and oil and gas. Our county needs the mineral lease money from these activities, but it also needs the much larger tax revenues from all the visitors the outdoor industry brings to Moab. Our company and all the letter signers are open to other solutions--but we are committed to finding a way to protect the recreation economy around Canyonlands National Park.

Many of the folks that have contacted me are under the false impression that this is about closing roads, or they simply hate the federal government and do not trust them. But the interesting thing is that we have heard nothing from the oil and gas industry. They know the system favors them and they are standing back and watching the motorized and non-motorized recreation communities waste all our energy talking to each other, when we really should be united---not to stop oil and gas, but to save a few places for recreation.

Who was this response from?

[COXR650L]

Originally Posted by dmac1

Part of a respionse I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.

Dave I understand your frustration. I know you have been working very hard on this issue with no recognition or support, but hang in there.

No we cannot say for sure what will happen if the monument is created, that’s what is great about the federal government, ask what’s involved and we’re told to wait and see.

However we can look at every other National Monument in the country and have a pretty good idea............


Furthermore, if the sole intention is to protect the lands from oil and gas exploration and not limit recreation the focus should on BLM. All permits etc for any mineral exploration go through that agency.

Plain and simple this is an underhanded move that seeks to take away a lot of land and not give current users any say in how it will be managed. When have you ever heard of input being asked for a TMP plan in an area such as Esclante Natl Monument? A National Monument gives sole decision making to the governing agency and we as users have almost no input on how the lands are managed (yes that means even less than we have now).

If there are specific area the BLM and users are concerned about regarding exploitation they can utilize BLM Wilderness Study areas to limited use, there is no need for a National Monument Designation over such a large area.

As I said before, not only would this designation be a huge blow to SE Utah, more importantly it will set a president for the entire western states on the power that environmental groups have. The Swell will follow, and then it will spread as large Wilderness Designations in Colorado and New New Mexico.

[Proud Highway]

So SUWA, Sierra Club et al wield the same level of influence on a political office regardless of who occupies it. Glad we straightened that out.

[Pariahtize]

Originally Posted by COXR650L

However we can look at every other National Monument in the country and have a pretty good idea............


Furthermore, if the sole intention is to protect the lands from oil and gas exploration and not limit recreation the focus should on BLM. All permits etc for any mineral exploration go through that agency.

Plain and simple this is an underhanded move that seeks to take away a lot of land and not give current users any say in how it will be managed. When have you ever heard of input being asked for a TMP plan in an area such as Esclante Natl Monument? A National Monument gives sole decision making to the governing agency and we as users have almost no input on how the lands are managed (yes that means even less than we have now).

If there are specific area the BLM and users are concerned about regarding exploitation they can utilize BLM Wilderness Study areas to limited use, there is no need for a National Monument Designation over such a large area.

As I said before, not only would this designation be a huge blow to SE Utah, more importantly it will set a president for the entire western states on the power that environmental groups have. The Swell will follow, and then it will spread as large Wilderness Designations in Colorado and New New Mexico.

Fully agree.

How is COHVCO, Blue Ribbon , etc dealing with this potential? Anyone know?

[SportSawyer]

Originally Posted by dmac1

Part of a response I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------
We have not endorsed the SUWA proposal that would close roads in the region. This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area.
.... .

Let me guess, the response you got came from one of the three key contacts listed on this press release from the OIA.

http://www.pitchengine.com/blackdiam...ional-monument

Which states: ".... Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) and more than 100 outdoor recreation related businesses will send a letter to President Obama urging him to protect Greater Canyonlands, the 1.4 million acre region of publicly-owned wildlands surrounding Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah as a national monument."

So they are asking for a monument with the same name and the same size as SUWA's proposed GCNM. What a coincidence.

Look a little further:

"The area, encompassing 1.4 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) land surrounding Canyonlands National Park, is under increasing pressure from rampant off-road vehicle abuse, proposed uranium, potash and tar sand mining, and oil and gas development."

Exactly what SUWA has as their reasons, and note that "rampant off-road vehicle abuse" is listed first.

The press release was posted on SUWA's site the next day:

http://www.suwa.org/2012/11/14/6238/

Look at SUWA's "Act Now" link... notice any similarities in the default message (see "Personalize your message" box):

https://secure2.convio.net/suwa/site...autologin=true

And that's coming from SUWA to support SUWA's plan:

http://dev.suwa.org/wp-content/uploa...bits_FINAL.pdf

So, how many proposals do you think have been sent to the President and DOI to proclaim a 1.4 million acre (less State and private inholdings, and that's a whole 'nuther issue) national monument that happens to be called "Greater Canyonlands"? Hint, you only need one finger on one hand.

That's just the first sentence of the reply you received, dig deeper and you'll find the whole response is misinformation at best, and more likely, intentionally deceitful. And it came from one of the three contacts on that press release (I know which one), who is working closely with SUWA to advance this proclamation. It's meant to confuse and diffuse the opposition.

[Gordy]

[QUOTE=COXR650L;20126623If there are specific area the BLM and users are concerned about regarding exploitation they can utilize BLM Wilderness Study areas to limited use, there is no need for a National Monument Designation over such a large area.
[/QUOTE]

Is this entire area currently managed by the BLM or multiple agencies?

I would like to know this as it will pertinent in my letters. (if it is)
I know a lage area of it is and possibly some is currently covered by The USFS?

If they have federal agencies overseeing this land, then they already have all the power that they need to restrict it in any means necessary to protect it without going for the blanket National Monument designation.

Thanks!