Bears Ears National Monument

Nick

Nick

-
.
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
12,951
Wow that is outstanding! We have made many, many trips within those boundaries, really some of our favorite hiking, camping, exploring, canyoneering places on earth. It is amazingly diverse.
 
Great news! Any chance he can squeeze in Greater Grand Canyon Heritage NM before he goes too?! ;-)
 
This is Great!!! Yeaaaa! Now have been in this area before and probably will again hopefully in the future. Personally do think all of the Southern Utah Canyon Country could be one massive nice and wild National Park with adjoining down to Grand Canyon to the south. Several more pieces protected. Yeaaaaa!!!
 
Some strange boundaries. I think I understand some of the exclusions for the specific resources, but... no lower Dark Canyon seems very odd. EDIT -- I see... it's already part of GCNRA.
 
This is a great use of presidential decree! Does anyone want to speculate on how this might affect public access? In terms of regulations regarding dispersed camping and hiking. I read the "fact sheet" published by the Department of the Interior but it was very vague regarding how/if regulations will change.
 
BryanG said:
This is a great use of presidential decree! Does anyone want to speculate on how this might affect public access? In terms of regulations regarding dispersed camping and hiking. I read the "fact sheet" published by the Department of the Interior but it was very vague regarding how/if regulations will change.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of it has to be shaken out by the Bears Ears Commission (i.e. gathering of firewood by Indian tribes, etc). The biggee is no new roads.

With regards to camping and hiking, no real way to know... GSENM allows it with minimal red tape (self-service permits); I assume something similar would go into effect for BENM
 
Get ready to see a lot more people and what they leave behind.............
 
Definitely very cool news ... and it's nice to see that there are at least a few Utahns who are happy about this! :)

I imagine the management changes will be pretty minimal overall. The big thing (as with GSEM) is that this takes mining and energy development off the table in the area.

The only thing I worry about is whether these monument designations will encourage the upcoming administration to attempt to repeal the Antiquities Act entirely, which would be a pretty unfortunate by-product ...
 
If you read the text of the declaration, it says USFS and BLM will co-manage. So largely expect business as usual as far as management within the monument boundaries. What this really does is block oil and gas extraction along with new grazing. As noted above, some concerns in regards to access still have to be ironed out. The DOI has to try and get rid of all the SITLA land within the boundaries (which could actually mean areas of current BLM land outside the monument being handed over to the state of Utah).
 
So glad to hear this! After our week visit in Bluff (this fall) and surrounding parts, I realized this massive area needs to stay protected. This designation for a NM is the right move. Hopefully BLM and administration has a strong plan.
 
Hehe ......................USFS and BLM don't get enough money now, if they did there wouldnt need to be a monument.

Anybody see the TV news release? For a minute I thought Obumma was changing Arches NP into part of the Monument....... stupid
 
Bob said:
Get ready to see a lot more people and what they leave behind.............
Click to expand...
Yup, that is why I am not in favor of a federal designation in the Island Park area. We would put a new park or monument on the map and another million people would stop and need paved walking trails everywhere.

I am a big fan of the National Park system overall though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top