Bears ears to be cut by 80%

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 121 - 140 of total 163 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
limpingcrab

Trad climber
the middle of CA
Dec 7, 2017 - 02:07pm PT
Sorry if this was addressed cause I haven't read the thread but I have one quick question.

Is the former monument getting converted back to its original public land designation (national forest, BLM, or whatever) or is it getting sold to private interests and will no longer be public land?
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Dec 7, 2017 - 02:09pm PT
still public. just more open to extraction, drilling, more likely to face ATVs etc, LESS likely to face fixed anchor ban, hordes of (climbing and other) tourons, etc
Trashman

Trad climber
SLC
Dec 7, 2017 - 02:17pm PT
So far. One dark thought that occurred to me this morning; Trump really doesn’t want Romney running for Hatch’s seat, and seems to be courting Hatch to run again. Official Utah pol position was never just eliminating BENM, they wanted the lands “returned” to the state.

Seems incredibly stupid for a senate seat(esp one that has no chance of changing parties) but I’ve lost count of the times I’ve muttered “They can’t be that stupid…” this year.
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 02:26pm PT
@BraveRacistCowboy - not sure what Juan mopping the floors at the burger joint has to do with public empty-lands management.

A rather stunning comment.
limpingcrab

Trad climber
the middle of CA
Dec 7, 2017 - 03:02pm PT
Is the former monument getting converted back to its original public land designation (national forest, BLM, or whatever) or is it getting sold to private interests and will no longer be public land?

still public. just more open to extraction, drilling, more likely to face ATVs etc, LESS likely to face fixed anchor ban, hordes of (climbing and other) tourons, etc

Thanks, that's what I thought, so I guess I'll stick with my "don't care if it loses its monument designation" opinion.

I wish Giant Sequoia National Monument was just a regular National Forest like it used to be. It got reviewed with the rest of them but no luck here.

Kinda funny how there's a thread where basically everyone on ST bashes the idea of Sierra NF getting the monument designation and another thread where almost everyone on ST gets pissed about Bear's Ears losing its monument designation.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Dec 7, 2017 - 03:09pm PT
Yes Lituya, yes. Avoid my question by pegging me as racist (ha!). Your comment attempted to link immigrants to monument status...Care to respond to my query?

After years of GWB and BHO open-borders immigration policy, I wonder just how much of an impact setting aside 800k acres really has. Immigrants use resources too.

I'm not the one using immigrants and the scary, scary "open-borders" policy of prior administrations to argue against monument status.....


Lituya, once again, please expound on the "open-borders" policy in place prior to the present time?

Lituya, again, please expound on the relationship between immigration policy and protection of federal lands?


If I cared to clear the air with you re: my "racism," I would. You have no idea.


Reeotch

climber
4 Corners Area
Dec 7, 2017 - 03:47pm PT
Is the former monument getting converted back to its original public land designation (national forest, BLM, or whatever) or is it getting sold to private interests and will no longer be public land?

No, not yet, that is:

Utah State Senator David Hinkins told the crowd they had won a battle but said he didn’t believe they have yet won the war. Hinkins added, “We need to get control of these lands under the State of Utah.”
http://ksjd.org/post/monticello-rally-celebrates-trumps-cuts-national-monuments
And, after reading this:
http://knau.org/post/trumps-utah-monument-reduction-plan-legal

Presidents have reduced monuments in the past, though not as much as Trump’s plan. He proposes shrinking Bears Ears by 85 percent and Escalante by about half its size. Opponents say a president can only designate a monument and it’s up to Congress to reduce it.

"Congress clarified that in a 1976 law, the Federal Lands Management Act, which does have an express provision saying the Secretary of Interior cannot modify or revoke any national monuments,” says Kirsten Engel, a law professor at the University of Arizona.

No monuments have been reduced since that act passed. Engel also says there’s never been a Supreme Court case on the issue. So it’s new legal territory.
. . . I'm wondering if the whole game is to force the issue into the SCOTUS???
c wilmot

climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 03:50pm PT
The game is to distract and divide.
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 04:05pm PT
@BraveCowboy

Opposing illegal immigration is not racist. On the other hand, stereotyping immigrants as "Juan" and worthy only of "mopping the floor at the local burger joint"--as you did--certainly is.

En cuanto a la premisa, um, esta no mui dificil, mi amigo. The majority of population growth in the US over the past 30 or so years is a result of immigration and the first generation thereof. The extractive industries you decry, rightly or wrongly, are acting on our behalf. More people = more strain on natural resources.
Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Dec 7, 2017 - 04:49pm PT
More people = more strain on natural resources.

The difference in the per capita impact on resources of undocumented vs. the white middle class is astronomical. Do you really think negative population growth is a good thing?
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 05:25pm PT
The difference in the per capita impact on resources of undocumented vs. the white middle class is astronomical.

You mean the per capita "white" middle class consumes more than the Asian middle class? or the black middle class? or the Latino middle class? I had no idea!
Trashman

Trad climber
SLC
Dec 7, 2017 - 05:56pm PT
The game is to distract and divide.

And as if on cue Lituya wants to discuss illegal immigration wrt public lands. It’s like they all listen to the same low IQ demagogues.
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:15pm PT
Sorry to disappoint, Trashman. This has been a Sierra Club debate for nearly two decades.

The real issue is liberal-green hypocrisy and its adherents' refusal to look in the mirror re resource and land management.
xCon

Social climber
909
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:20pm PT
climbing.com
Interview: Access Fund's Brady Robinson on Trump's Bears Ears Reduction
Credit: xCon
Trashman

Trad climber
SLC
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:23pm PT
You mean like someone trying to divide Sierra club membership over a totally unrelated issue? Sounds like a good way to dilute influence.

People impact the planet wherever they are, don’t thing the SC cares if it’s the Sierra Nevada or Baja.

Edit. On the off chance you’re looking for an honest “look in the mirror” assessment; My wife and spent much of our courtship in the IC area. We loved the place and saw it being loved to death as time went on. Our response was to aggressively fund raise for permanent toilet facilities and to stop visiting. It’s been over a decade now and I miss it, but not enough to deal with the crowds that are now commonplace there. What have you done to improve the places you love Lituya?
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:30pm PT
^yeah dude, shame to know I'll not likely be back to that place again. understand.


Lituya, I am well-versed in leasable salable and locatable minerals and their extraction - I never used the word greedy, nor am I afraid to face the fact that I utilize fossil energy. I'm a bit unsure how immigrants use energy differently than do red-blooded Americans......

I am not afraid of Juan mopping the floor down on the corner, nor would I limit him to such. You are the one so scared of what's across the border, not me.
My friend Juan who works at the burger shop a l'esquina says to you: Chupalo pendejito.

You choose not to address my repeated simple questions about your linking immigration to protection of our land.

Lituya, once again, please expound on the "open-borders" policy in place prior to the present time?

Lituya, again, please expound on the relationship between immigration policy and protection of federal lands?


No need to answer, I understand that your weak skillz direct you to divert, obfuscate, reflect perceived biases/transgressions. You lack the humanity to call me a racist AFAIAC.
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
Most geologists I've worked with are great at connecting dots--but less so at irony. The pieces are all above; not sure I can offer additional help.

BTW, have you worked a lot with lead?
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:46pm PT
If the issue is population growth, call it such. If the issue is fear of the other, call it such.

I'm still a bit cornfused as to how one immediately resorts to Immigration in a discussion of land preservation.


If you fail to see a way around utilizing 17th century energy sources and think that Messicans and other southern swarthy types are the main driver of increasing energy use, I guess......














































Credit: thebravecowboy
Lituya

Mountain climber
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:52pm PT
The pressure to extract, develop, use land is directly related to the number of people using resources. Kind of a Malthusian concept in reverse. Extractive industries simply respond to demand and lobby for more land from which to extract.


BTW, you keep editing and radically changing your posts. Please stop. Difficult to have a conversation with such a shape-shifting, racist tool.

thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Dec 7, 2017 - 06:53pm PT
pressure to extract, develop, use land is directly related to the number of people using resources

well if we keep using resources in the same way we did in 1769 then sure. The population problem is not unique to the US, nor do the US and its resources exist in some kind of God-given White bubble..not sure why you feel the need to selectively point out "Others" in this discussion of American resources. Calvino leave the TV on all night or something?

If all them Others are kept out in your master scheme of federal land management, won't the market still just force a selling off of such unprotected (in your scenario) mostly antiquated (in fact) resources under our desert land? To them dirty rotten screwin'-like-rabbits Others, too.


This is not about WHO is consuming the resources. It is about preserving land for the sake of the land itself. You know, like a keepsake. Or a savings account.



racist tool

this is a first for me. thanks?



EDIT: no. I switch my postings to spread-eagles of Maggie Thatcher if you keep calling me a racist, you Alaska-sounding potato-punch sucking scoundrel ;-O
Messages 121 - 140 of total 163 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews