I'm pretty depressed about this Bears Ears deal

[Hickey]

I've always wanted to run Hole in the Rock trail, and it looks like I won't have a chance to run it until the new year. By then, I'm expecting it (and many other trails) will be closed. I just drove from Monticello to Green River, and it was just killing me to see all of that beauty locked down.

Is there any possibility of our state doing anything to block this crap?

Is it possible to run the trail in January?

Can we secede yet?

 

[mbryson]

WRITE YOUR Senators and Reps. ALL OF THEM. State and Fed. It's pretty late in the process at this point and I'm sure Obama wants a few more environmental feathers in his cap before he leaves office. I'll be surprised if the Greater Canyonlands (now renamed Bears Ears) doesn't go through.

 

[Herzog]

It's complete bullshit.

 

[mbryson]

The lack of people commenting on these issues isn't helping. Not many in the motorized community are interested in actually sitting down and writing a message to their reps. IF there were folks that would do so, it MAY make a difference in keeping historic routes open within the redundant Bears Ears National Monument designation (which will be funded under the already struggling National Parks Dept that has budget issues)

 

[Hickey]

I've written, called, and commented on everything I can.

Marc, you're dead on about the National Parks and Monuments being not just underfunded, but drastically underfunded. Their "guaranteed" budget is raided every single year just like Social Security by our own congress. They can't pay for anything they need, much less make improvements at any of these newer parks and monuments. It's been 20 years since Escalante came down from the high king and what improvements are there? Some signage?

 

[mbryson]

I brought this exact issue up all this past weekend in Moab. Whether in RR4W trail safety meetings, in stores or in restaurants and there really weren't a lot of people that had even heard about it. Those that had are pretty opposed to it (in fact vehemently). The sacred native sites should be catalogued and set aside. I have NO ISSUE whatsoever with that as long as those sites are not 1/3 of the 2nd to largest county in UT. (San Juan County is 5 million acres. Proposal is 1.9 million acres. There is a LOT of Canyonlands National Park in San Juan. Glen Canyon Rec area is a decent chunk. There's a few other monuments there as well. I'd assume tribal holdings are likely close to 1 million acres (give or take a couple hundred thousand?). That's cutting up that county for preservation or federal control pretty significantly.)

 

[DAA]

- DAA

 

[Kevin B.]

These are some links I put together for a Facebook post, thought I'd put them here too.

BRC page with some good links: https://sharetrails.org/alert/partner-alert-bear-ears-national-monument/

ARRA letter generator: http://www.arra-access.com/action/?vvsrc=/campaigns/47402/respond

Info thread on ExpUt with lots more links: http://www.expeditionutah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5310

How to write your Congressman: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

It takes an hour or so to get educated on the issue and write a couple letters, sign a couple petitions, share some links via email or Facebook or whatever. But petitions are failing for lack of signatures, and SUWAs money machine is doing what it does. We're going to lose this access because not enough of us cared enough to do anything about it, and that sucks.

 

[thefirstzukman]

http://www.satiratribune.com/2016/02/10/obama-giving-half-of-federal-land-back-to-native-americans/

Funny thing is I could see this fool doing this, he would love to start a war on American soil.

I think this will probably pass, it is how they manage the land from there on out that will matter. The Tribes want control of the land also, they already have control of some parts inside the proposed area. The area has been abused in some places, there are roads in places that run 100' from another road that goes the same place. Interested in seeing this played out, It is not right that the state doesn't have much control inside it boundaries, I definitely see the need to have some refinement on the management of most lands, but this move is equivalent to fighting Internet porn by getting rid of electricity.

 

[mbryson]

Ran across this map last night after I got done dismantling our kitchen

http://www.sanjuancounty.org/surveyor/SJC_2016_overall42X59.pdf

 

[Herzog]

(which will be funded under the already struggling National Parks Dept that has budget issues)

Bombs, drones and internal surveillance are/is expensive. I wish I were being sarcastic.

Designations like this are for debt collateral, nothing more. You really think the 'ruling class' gives a shit about rural Utah? The morons that think it's because "we're gonna save it for future generations" are a bunch of mindless cucks that have drank the propaganda bullshit. That area is beautiful and serene as it is. Supporters of the monument haven't even been there.

 

[Hickey]

Bombs, drones and internal surveillance are/is expensive. I wish I were being sarcastic.

Designations like this are for debt collateral, nothing more. You really think the 'ruling class' gives a shit about rural Utah? The morons that think it's because "we're gonna save it for future generations" are a bunch of mindless cucks that have drank the propaganda bullshit. That area is beautiful and serene as it is. Supporters of the monument haven't even been there.

I try not to be a conspiracy freak, but I deep down, secretly think you're spot on. Actually I think you're spot on about the tip of the iceberg.

I think clinton sold our land that are rich in coal/oil deposits to Russia in exchange for campaign contributions. When I say sold, I mean that they intend to lock up this land permanently, in order to increase the value of other nations deposits of coal/oil.

 

[Herzog]

I try not to be a conspiracy freak, but I deep down, secretly think you're spot on. Actually I think you're spot on about the tip of the iceberg.

I think clinton sold our land that are rich in coal/oil deposits to Russia in exchange for campaign contributions. When I say sold, I mean that they intend to lock up this land permanently, in order to increase the value of other nations deposits of coal/oil.

It's not a matter of selling the land. It's set aside as and designated as collateral. Russia or china isn't going to show up and build on it. That's where people get hung up. No, it's put down and documented as collateral for many reasons. Our actually currency isn't worth damn, other than the trust of the people. That doesn't go very far anymore.

Sites like snopes and other (yea, let's trust these "authoritative" sites... they've been caught stating the wrong "facts" many times) will say otherwise. Why wouldn't they?

There's a lot of read on this subject and Roosevelt.

 

[Herzog]

I try not to be a conspiracy freak, but I deep down, secretly think you're spot on. Actually I think you're spot on about the tip of the iceberg.

I think clinton sold our land that are rich in coal/oil deposits to Russia in exchange for campaign contributions. When I say sold, I mean that they intend to lock up this land permanently, in order to increase the value of other nations deposits of coal/oil.

It's not a matter of selling the land. It's set aside as and designated as collateral to take on more debt. Russia or china isn't going to show up and build on it. That's where people get hung up. No, it's put down and documented as collateral for many reasons.
Sites like snopes and other (yea, let's trust these "authoritative" sites...) will say otherwise. Why wouldn't they?

There's a lot of read on this subject and Roosevelt.

(edit, mixed my Roosevelts momentarily)

use https://duckduckgo.com for your searches. You'd be surprised in the difference of results in contrast to google.

 

[Herzog]

When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, “No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.” Baker’s definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say “about” 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article, Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states.

...

The environmental movement has accomplished two major goals since the 1960’s. It has been effective in driving domestic mining, oil and timber companies off the resource base and into the hands of international entities which also represent the holders of massive amounts of US debt obligation.

The environmental movement has also been very effective in forcing the transfer of private land into the hands of government. When one follows the money trail to find out where the environmental groups obtain the means to finance litigation, legislation and propaganda to achieve these ends that trail leads to major corporations, banks, and foundations whose investment portfolios are top heavy in unsecured US debt obligations. Only a massive increase in the government’s asset base can make that unsecured debt good

In simple terms, the resource base of the US has been mortgaged by a profligate central government and the creditors are positioning themselves for foreclosure.

...

The creditors of the United States were getting nervous by the mid-1960′s. President Nixon had to collateralize more debt. He settled upon a plan to quietly set aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts.

But the American people were already angered over the Vietnam “war”. Nixon couldn’t very well admit that he was parceling out huge chunks of the United States to holders of U.S. debt.

So, he invented the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, proving to the holders of the debt that Americans are not drilling, mining, or otherwise developing those resources.

As the government sinks deeper into debt, it grabs more and more land, declares it to be a “wilderness,” “heritage river,” or “wetlands” area. There are various other designations, but the end result is the same: The People may not use the land. In many cases they are forbidden to set foot on it.

It is not about conservation, it is about establishing collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place.

...

“In the Weimar (Germany) hyperinflation, after the hyperinflation, what did they back their currency with? They backed it with mortgages and they backed it with land. This is a total possibility here in America, but here’s the part that is more sinister and crazy,” Calvo said. “The Department of the Interior and BLM have been providing sweetheart deals for Chinese investors. I have a laundry list of deals that have been approved just in the last year.”

http://usawatchdog.com/blm-selling-out-america-fabian-calvo/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/

 

[mesha]

When we at the american fork canyon deal I got about 10 minutes to talk with the senator over San Juan county. He is against the monument and acknowledges that the citizens of San Juan are against it as well. He has been fighting it, but isn't sure if anything can actually be done to stop it.

 

[Pile of parts]

Not our neck of the woods but basically the same thing.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=41483172&nid=157&title=obama-to-create-first-us-atlantic-marine-monument

 

[Alcancia]

This isn't going to be popular, but as a 4x4 and outdoor enthusiast, I'm glad more lands are going under federal control.

I don't know what millionaires you guys are all buddies with, but I've been blocked by a lot more "Private Property - No Trespassing" signs than I have fed signs. Meanwhile, I've wheeled, hiked, and camped on a ton of federal land. Including a few nights at Natural Birdges National Monument.

We all love the outdoors for the beauty and serenity and the chance it gives us to get away from it all. Without protection, this land would be sold out the instant anyone can make a few quick bucks. It's not the best solution, but I'll take federal control over privatization every day.

I know there are some that are very upset about this designation. My advice, get out there on the trails as much as you can. When considering land management strategies, the roads that are frequently used will stay open (hopefully). The roads that are overgrown and almost never used won't make the cut for management and will be closed.

 

[Kevin B.]

I'm not sure what land you're referring to, but the land in question was already under federal control and not in danger of going anywhere?

 

[jeeper]

Public land is waaaaay better than private, no doubt. But this land was already public. I have seen very little of it, so we could lose 90% of the access, and I personally would not really notice. However, there are many on this forum who know the area intimately, and may be greatly affected by even 1 lost road or trail.
I have relatives in blinding who rely on the mining of these lands for a living, and the ability to cut wood for any extra spending cash they earn. This could potentially ruin their life. So for the sake of others, we all need to support their cause.. or in the future, there will be no one left to help support our causes