Hope they can push this through

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... -Utah.html

I think it'll bring more people, regulations, and fees.... making it a wilderness study area would be better i think. Some of it already is.

d_shorb wrote:I think it'll bring more people, regulations, and fees.... making it a wilderness study area would be better i think. Some of it already is.

Wilderness requires congressional approval though, doesn't it? It'd be hard to ram it through. Better to use the Antiquities Act and make it a sure thing

1000Pks wrote:+1

Just went through there a few months ago. Too bad no one (from N CA) will partner up so we can see more.

You notice they're considering Heart of the Great Basin as an NM in Nevada too?

I think it'll bring more people, regulations, and fees....

You may be pleased to know that none of the BLM run National Monuments in the area (Western Colorado, Southern Utah and Northern Arizona) charge entrance fees, at least not at this time.

PS, for those interested, here is the SP page for the San Rafael Swell:

http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/18 ... swell.html

patssox09 wrote:

d_shorb wrote:I think it'll bring more people, regulations, and fees.... making it a wilderness study area would be better i think. Some of it already is.

Wilderness requires congressional approval though, doesn't it? It'd be hard to ram it through. Better to use the Antiquities Act and make it a sure thing

A Wilderness Study Area (WSA) can be created via an administrative decision by the BLM, as opposed to designated wilderness, which does require congressional approval.

I have to admit I'm somewhat ambivalent about this, especially regarding the San Rafael Swell. It's one of the last places in the area where you can find real solitude. Lack of monument status is keeping that place literally "off the map." Although it would be great to remove all of the mining and grazing leases...

The good news is it would likely be a national monument in the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, which is relatively unknown. Add it to the National Park system and every Sunday driver would start demanding a paved road to the mouth of Crack Canyon.

1000Pks wrote:More Info:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/obama_to_create_new_national_monuments/C564/L564/

It'll be a tough fight. Some of those areas might better be sacrificed rather than incur a huge backlash and the repeal of Antiquities, and then possibly the WA itself!

I think may be in agreement here.

National Monuments are fine things and some areas are definitely worth preserving. Places like the San Rafael Swell are spectacular, unique and ought to be left as such. However, National Monument (or Conservation Area et al) can also be abused. By using the designation to simply take areas off the table for some kind of "development", whatever that may be in a given instance, they are diluting the value of what that status is intended to indicate.

Compare a proclamation designating the Grand Canyon as a National Monument to a hypothetical proclamation creating Lower Prairie Chicken National Monument. It weakens the value given to places like Dinosaur or Grand Staircase-Escalante. When President Clinton created the latter in the 90's conservatives (of which I am one) were up in arms. I think the anonymity of the region resulted in a general misunderstanding of what that area is like, coal or no coal. But that area deserves National Park status, let alone National Monument status. The same cannot be said for most of the areas now being considered. I see the current list as more agenda driven than trying to actually contribute positively to the National Monument system, especially when such huge swaths of land are considered or such...uninteresting landscapes are on the shortlist. Add to this new National Monuments that get no infrastructure and people start to grumble, as is the case up in my neck of the woods with Cascade-Siskiyou.

I think some places ought to receive protection, but they ought to be worth the fight or else the whole system is watered down and as Pete suggest, a backlash could actually hurt the whole system of preserving land.

Vagabond Manifesto wrote:

patssox09 wrote:

d_shorb wrote:I think it'll bring more people, regulations, and fees.... making it a wilderness study area would be better i think. Some of it already is.

Wilderness requires congressional approval though, doesn't it? It'd be hard to ram it through. Better to use the Antiquities Act and make it a sure thing

A Wilderness Study Area (WSA) can be created via an administrative decision by the BLM, as opposed to designated wilderness, which does require congressional approval.

I have to admit I'm somewhat ambivalent about this, especially regarding the San Rafael Swell. It's one of the last places in the area where you can find real solitude. Lack of monument status is keeping that place literally "off the map." Although it would be great to remove all of the mining and grazing leases...

The good news is it would likely be a national monument in the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, which is relatively unknown. Add it to the National Park system and every Sunday driver would start demanding a paved road to the mouth of Crack Canyon.

word.
I just met with Ray Peterson, Emery County's Public Lands Director. He believes that the wilderness study areas WILL be expanded, to the chagrin of some locals. As of now SUWA has surveyed tons of areas in the Swell, and for them to be added to Wilderness Study Areas currently existing would we great.

Ray has a map of the new proposals on one of his webpages:
http://www.emerycounty.com/publiclands/landuseplan.html
click on the "Emery County Red Rock Range Improvements Map" at the bottom of the page and you'll get a quick download.

This will prevent the creation of new ponds (created by tractors), and fence repairs done by motor vehicles, and the like. Grazing leases, will most likely not be affected (nor will the permits of wilderness therapy companies and other users) It will also not attract as much attention nationally or internationally, which I think is more important in the long run. Yes, cattle suck. But the ranchers have been there one hundred years already, and, like some of the ranches in the Tetons, may stay there. Contrary to many peoples beliefs, ranchers want the land to be sustainable as well. And they also try to keep their cattle on the upper grassland where most of us outdoor types dont go anyway.

I don't want another east coast vacation spot here. we got enough of those. Getting rid of the ATVers is the REAL KEY, and Wilderness Study Areas do that.

Bubba Suess wrote:

1000Pks wrote:More Info:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/obama_to_create_new_national_monuments/C564/L564/

It'll be a tough fight. Some of those areas might better be sacrificed rather than incur a huge backlash and the repeal of Antiquities, and then possibly the WA itself!

I think may be in agreement here.

National Monuments are fine things and some areas are definitely worth preserving. Places like the San Rafael Swell are spectacular, unique and ought to be left as such. However, National Monument (or Conservation Area et al) can also be abused. By using the designation to simply take areas off the table for some kind of "development", whatever that may be in a given instance, they are diluting the value of what that status is intended to indicate.

Compare a proclamation designating the Grand Canyon as a National Monument to a hypothetical proclamation creating Lower Prairie Chicken National Monument. It weakens the value given to places like Dinosaur or Grand Staircase-Escalante. When President Clinton created the latter in the 90's conservatives (of which I am one) were up in arms. I think the anonymity of the region resulted in a general misunderstanding of what that area is like, coal or no coal. But that area deserves National Park status, let alone National Monument status. The same cannot be said for most of the areas now being considered. I see the current list as more agenda driven than trying to actually contribute positively to the National Monument system, especially when such huge swaths of land are considered or such...uninteresting landscapes are on the shortlist. Add to this new National Monuments that get no infrastructure and people start to grumble, as is the case up in my neck of the woods with Cascade-Siskiyou.

I think some places ought to receive protection, but they ought to be worth the fight or else the whole system is watered down and as Pete suggest, a backlash could actually hurt the whole system of preserving land.

I think it's safe to say that the from the first use of the antiquities act to create national monuments thousands of acres in size it has been misused (based on the wording of the bill), though I can't disagree with it's use in many cases.

I think the area being in Utah makes it subject to comparison to the other national parks which is unfair. The San Rafael Swell doesn't have a Delicate Arch, a West Temple or a Fairyland Point but something like Little Wild Horse Canyon in almost any other state would easily qualify it for National Park Status. Certainly there are enough I think Utahans are spoiled with concern to their wild areas!

Unless the whole area gets declared as a WSA I don't see a better way to preserve it. From watching the Ken Burns series on National Parks it seems like every time the antiquities act is used the resistance is massive (Grand Canyon, Grand Tetons, the Olympic Peninsula).

For reference, a complete list of areas in consideration.

San Rafael Swell, Utah

Northern Montana Prairie, Montana

Lesser Prairie Chicken Preserve, New Mexico

Berryessa Snow Mountains, California

Heart of the Great Basin, Nevada

Otero Mesa, New Mexico

Northwest Sonoran Desert, Arizona

Owyhee Desert, Oregon and Nevada

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, California (expansion)

Vermillion Basin, Colorado

Bodie Hills, California

The Modoc Plateau, California

Cedar Mesa, Utah

San Juan Islands, Washington



Some areas may be more deserving than others, but every place will have its advocates in the locals and visitors who hold a special attachment to a particular piece of land and treasure it above all others, even the Lesser Prairie Chicken Preserve. In looking up background information on some of these places I think one of the reasons Interior is moving now is to react against some of the mining and drilling leases BLM is currently considering. The Vermillion Basin in Colorado is part of an oil shale field that holds more oil than all of Saudi Arabia. A few derricks isn't disruptive to the environment, but as the technology stands today to extract that oil would require scraping off the entire surface of the land, somewhat akin to mountaintop removal methods down in Appalachia.

Even if they do push through only the more "essential" monuments there will still be backlash, but I don't think (and hope) it will be enough to repeal the Antiquities Act. Such "land grabs", as one Utah Rep in the article calls it, has happened before, notably at the twilight of the Carter and Clinton administrations. You might see more of a national backlash if oil prices were rising over $4, but with the last energy crisis somewhat on the periphery now the timing is right for the proclamation of these lands. The backlash will be mostly limited to locals, and most people east of the plains won't give it much thought.

I think GC/Escalante is a good example. Others may know the area better than I do and be able to correct me, but I don't think visitation has swelled there after the NM status. Part of it might have to do with the fact that its BLM administered, but not all NPS sites are "loved to death" by its visitors as long as the place is remote enough. Witness Dinosaur NM, Great Basin, Guadalupe Mtns, etc. Unfortunately the San Rafael Swell, due to its location on a prime piece of interstate, might receive some more attention, but that could be mitigated by placing the prospective NM under the BLM.

patssox09 wrote: I don't think visitation has swelled there after the NM status. Part of it might have to do with the fact that its BLM administered, but not all NPS sites are "loved to death" by its visitors as long as the place is remote enough. Unfortunately the San Rafael Swell, due to its location on a prime piece of interstate, might receive some more attention

Visitation DID swell. and Lets keep it to that area. Just look at who on SP has pics of the Swell and who has pics of Escalante. Escalante is much more popular, and the Swell already gets its share of users.

d_shorb wrote:I think it'll bring more people, regulations, and fees....

No doubt on the first, probably on the second, maybe on the third.

However, unless they go paving the roads, I doubt visitation will increase to the point of being truly "busy" or "crowded" on all but a few days per year. The area is just too big and remote, and access too long and rough (for regular cars) for a lot of people. You'll see a spike in usage around Buckhorn Wash and Little Wild Horse Canyon and the roadside stops along I-70, but I think much of the rest of the area will stay as it is. And those second and third places are already pretty busy.

While it's true that visitation to Grand Staircase-Escalante increased, it really seems most of it is along the bordering highways and the Burr Trail. The rest is still wide open and practically untouched.

In general, I'm in favor of protecting anything we can. At the rate open space disappears in this country, I'm all for some permanent protection even if it means inviting some more human usage. I'd rather see the wilderness areas expand in the Swell, but if a monument is the best that can be expected, so be it. It would be great to let some of the ATV scars heal and put a stop to new ones being made. Some angry people will still make the scars as they did in Grand Staircase, but the overall picture would improve.

So as long as they don't go paving the main roads, I'm all for it.

http://www.nps.gov/cebr/planyourvisit/entrance-fees.htm

http://www.nps.gov/colm/planyourvisit/f ... ations.htm

http://www.nps.gov/hove/planyourvisit/f ... ations.htm

to clarify

True, but none of those are BLM run national monuments.

The BLM run national monuments (such as the San Rafael one will be) in the area are as follows:

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/nm/canm.html

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/grand_st ... lante.html

http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/fo/grand_ca ... shant.html

At this time, none of them have entrance fees, though one place at Calf Creek Falls (which fee preceeds the monument) is $3 to park at.

However, unless they go paving the roads, I doubt visitation will increase to the point of being truly "busy" or "crowded" on all but a few days per year. The area is just too big and remote, and access too long and rough (for regular cars) for a lot of people. You'll see a spike in usage around Buckhorn Wash and Little Wild Horse Canyon and the roadside stops along I-70, but I think much of the rest of the area will stay as it is. And those second and third places are already pretty busy.

While it's true that visitation to Grand Staircase-Escalante increased, it really seems most of it is along the bordering highways and the Burr Trail. The rest is still wide open and practically untouched.

I agree with the above. I've noticed the same exact thing with the GSENM. Even in the remote areas, visitor use has increased a little, but it probably has more to do with the new guidebooks out rather than the monument itself. You can still hike there for weeks/months/years without seeing another person in many areas. Visitor use has increased along the highways and a few other popular hikes (Round Valley Draw or Hackberry Canyon for example), but I don't really see this as a bad thing. The more people that see how spectacular it is may equate to the more people whom want to protect it. As long as people use LNT priciples, increased visitor use may actually have some advantages.

Bubba Suess wrote: By using the designation to simply take areas off the table for some kind of "development", whatever that may be in a given instance, they are diluting the value of what that status is intended to indicate.

Compare a proclamation designating the Grand Canyon as a National Monument to a hypothetical proclamation creating Lower Prairie Chicken National Monument. It weakens the value given to places like Dinosaur or Grand Staircase-Escalante. [...] But that area deserves National Park status, let alone National Monument status. The same cannot be said for most of the areas now being considered. I see the current list as more agenda driven than trying to actually contribute positively to the National Monument system, especially when such huge swaths of land are considered or such...uninteresting landscapes are on the shortlist.

What is "interesting" or beautiful is a judgment of aesthetic value; it's completely subjective and it changes from person to person. So conservation, which is the "agenda" of the current list, must be based on objective measures; in other words, science. The primary purpose of these monuments is to preserve ecosystems that are increasingly threatened by development, not to provide a playground for recreational users. We may not think the prairie chicken is worthy of protection because it happens to live in "uninteresting" landscapes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't "deserve" protection from a conservation standpoint.

The Lower 48 has about 52 million acres of designated wilderness, roughly 2% of all land; another 1% is included in non-wilderness National Park System areas. So only 3% of the United States, outside of Alaska, has significant protection from development. Contrary to what Western politicians would have us believe, the "huge swaths of land" that have been "taken off the table" constitute 97% of the continental United States. To me, that's the definition of a land grab, rather than these proposed monuments.

The more people that see how spectacular it is may equate to the more people whom want to protect it. As long as people use LNT priciples, increased visitor use may actually have some advantages.

An excellent point, and that's how I've come to feel myself. I used to complain a lot about the crowds, but I came to realize two things:

1. It's still very easy to get away from the crowds.

2. The more people experiencing our natural treasures, the better. Not everyone will walk away a conservationist, but many will gain a deeper appreciation and respect for the wilderness, even some who do no more than stop at the overlooks of the Grand Canyon.

There was a time, almost 20 years ago now, that I was all for drilling in ANWR. People need gas, so why not drill, I thought. Starting to see and then really experience the wilderness a few years later changed everything for me.

Vagabond Manifesto wrote:What is "interesting" ..."deserve" protection from a conservation standpoint.

You missed my point. I am not commenting on what does and does not need protection. Rather I was trying to make a point regarding the methodology. I think National Monuments ought to be for the singular and spectacular. If they want to preserve prairie chickens, I see nothing wrong with that, but do so as a wildlife refuge.

Vagabond Manifesto wrote:The Lower 48 has about 52 million acres of designated wilderness, roughly 2% of all land; another 1% is included in non-wilderness National Park System areas. So only 3% of the United States, outside of Alaska, has significant protection from development. Contrary to what Western politicians would have us believe, the "huge swaths of land" that have been "taken off the table" constitute 97% of the continental United States. To me, that's the definition of a land grab, rather than these proposed monuments.

So private land is a "land grab"?