12-29-2016, 11:05 PM
That's a much better response. Unfortunately I don't have the most time to do a huge in depth response right now but I'll say a few things. I'm a recent graduate student in Natural Resources Recreation Planning Management so I know the history of land management, stuff about agencies, how they operate and stuff that most folks don't. I'm just going to select a few statements you've said and number them and write a response.
1. "Yellowstone is a perfect example. World class scenery and wildlife and geology completely ruined, in my opinion, by boardwalks and souvenir stands and buses and guided tours and 1000 other things that ruin the wilderness that was meant to be save". I actually agree with parts of what you say on this one. Board walks aren't aesthetically pleasing; they were installed as part of the NPS mandate of inclusiveness. There's the backcountry areas you and me like to go to as well but part of the inclusiveness mandate that the NPS is required to follow is making some areas accessible to those with disabilities. The NPS has stricter management objectives than for example the BLM. No offense but that's probably one of the reasons why people like ranchers might not like them. The reason for buses is to help with traffic control and unlike for example the BLM, the NPS has air quality standards it's required to try obtaining as part of its mission statement. To be honest all National Parks are failing their air quality standards for a variety of reasons. But that's why their are buses.
2. "This monument is the end of generations of public land grazing." Grazing, Mining, Drilling and Logging still take place in National Monuments. Those activities are allowed in active sights. They aren't allowed in spots where those activities aren't currently taking place.
3.A small minority of the Native American activists, the SUWA and a few other "wilderness groups" have said that without protection, rampant vandalism and looting will take place? How will a monument stop or prevent that? From what I've read only 20 people per day will be allowed to visit the monument. That's going to decrease the use of the area which will reduce the likelihood of anyone doing those things plus the limit on people offsets the advertising that you are talking about. I'll admitt I haven't been to the Bears Ears area yet(I've always wanted to). I know the BLM was managing it before this but I still doubt they were enforcing or actively looking monitoring for these types of crimes. I suspect with it being a monument there will be a lot more security going on. The other part of the protection wilderness groups are talking about has nothing to do with vandalism. Since it's statehood, Utah has sold over 50% of it's public lands...federal government doesn't do that. Utah is the most rapidly growing state as far as population growth and such goes. Even though the BLM managed the land prior to this being a monument they don't really get to decide how they want to manage it. Senators like Rob Bishop who have corporate and special interests do. Without it being a monument there is absolutely no doubt that this land would become a combination of private property, more homes and business, more mining, drilling, logging, and grazing sites, environmentally degraded, and decreased in size.
[signature]
1. "Yellowstone is a perfect example. World class scenery and wildlife and geology completely ruined, in my opinion, by boardwalks and souvenir stands and buses and guided tours and 1000 other things that ruin the wilderness that was meant to be save". I actually agree with parts of what you say on this one. Board walks aren't aesthetically pleasing; they were installed as part of the NPS mandate of inclusiveness. There's the backcountry areas you and me like to go to as well but part of the inclusiveness mandate that the NPS is required to follow is making some areas accessible to those with disabilities. The NPS has stricter management objectives than for example the BLM. No offense but that's probably one of the reasons why people like ranchers might not like them. The reason for buses is to help with traffic control and unlike for example the BLM, the NPS has air quality standards it's required to try obtaining as part of its mission statement. To be honest all National Parks are failing their air quality standards for a variety of reasons. But that's why their are buses.
2. "This monument is the end of generations of public land grazing." Grazing, Mining, Drilling and Logging still take place in National Monuments. Those activities are allowed in active sights. They aren't allowed in spots where those activities aren't currently taking place.
3.A small minority of the Native American activists, the SUWA and a few other "wilderness groups" have said that without protection, rampant vandalism and looting will take place? How will a monument stop or prevent that? From what I've read only 20 people per day will be allowed to visit the monument. That's going to decrease the use of the area which will reduce the likelihood of anyone doing those things plus the limit on people offsets the advertising that you are talking about. I'll admitt I haven't been to the Bears Ears area yet(I've always wanted to). I know the BLM was managing it before this but I still doubt they were enforcing or actively looking monitoring for these types of crimes. I suspect with it being a monument there will be a lot more security going on. The other part of the protection wilderness groups are talking about has nothing to do with vandalism. Since it's statehood, Utah has sold over 50% of it's public lands...federal government doesn't do that. Utah is the most rapidly growing state as far as population growth and such goes. Even though the BLM managed the land prior to this being a monument they don't really get to decide how they want to manage it. Senators like Rob Bishop who have corporate and special interests do. Without it being a monument there is absolutely no doubt that this land would become a combination of private property, more homes and business, more mining, drilling, logging, and grazing sites, environmentally degraded, and decreased in size.
[signature]