Biden restores Bears Ears National Monument size

[Sytes]

Hydroelectric power... where would we be without such - considering where we are now?

Let's get nuclear!

National Parks are one's opinion of a human playground over another's.

 

[Irrelevant]

Exactly, through 4 million into Hetch Hetchy and you'd relieve some pressure on other places

What you should be asking yourself is how can we make Orlando a national park

Sure, but only because I don't love it. I would never want anything more than a WSA designation to a place I love.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I agree with a lot of your comments. But I can't agree with this blanket idea that by making a "special place" some labeled protected area that it actually protects it any better than simply ignoring it.

I could go to this wonderfully protected area, a true conservation success story location and experience the majesty of Yosemite like this, ass to nose holding on to 100+ year old a metal cables, with a 1,000 other people.
View attachment 197396

Or I could hunt antelope in WY in a landscape developed in the classical sense, and never see another person.
View attachment 197397

Which special place is still special? Which can you still experience the soul of a place?

I think people are too infatuated with the idea of "protection" without actually looking at what the means and re-evaluating our actions based on the results we've seen.

Zoom out on that photo of the pronghorn and tell the whole story there. Pad after pad with 5-10 acre spacing steals the soul of any place, I don't care who you are.

Someone mentioned Parks as a sacrifice zone, and to a certain extent, that's true, especially in the more developed recreational areas, but honestly, the wildlife of Yellowstone would be in far worse shape if that Park hadn't been created. Elk especially, but Grizzly Bears, wolves, Bison and lions all have benefitted from that National Park. TR National Park is the reason that No Dak has elk, and Canyonlands and Arches would have been corporate theme parks without being designated as National Parks.

But National Monuments are wildly different than National Parks. The CMR is a prime example of a monument that handles significant hunting pressure yet still has acres of untouched backcountry. Seedskadee WR is the same, as are so many other monuments. Yeah, painting a sign on something that says "special" does increase awareness of it, but it also creates more advocates for that place, as well as provides a pathway to sensible management of those places in order to manage them for the greatest number of people, over the greatest course of time.

 

[Irrelevant]

Zoom out on that photo of the pronghorn and tell the whole story there. Pad after pad with 5-10 acre spacing steals the soul of any place, I don't care who you are.

Someone mentioned Parks as a sacrifice zone, and to a certain extent, that's true, especially in the more developed recreational areas, but honestly, the wildlife of Yellowstone would be in far worse shape if that Park hadn't been created. Elk especially, but Grizzly Bears, wolves, Bison and lions all have benefitted from that National Park. TR National Park is the reason that No Dak has elk, and Canyonlands and Arches would have been corporate theme parks without being designated as National Parks.

But National Monuments are wildly different than National Parks. The CMR is a prime example of a monument that handles significant hunting pressure yet still has acres of untouched backcountry. Seedskadee WR is the same, as are so many other monuments. Yeah, painting a sign on something that says "special" does increase awareness of it, but it also creates more advocates for that place, as well as provides a pathway to sensible management of those places in order to manage them for the greatest number of people, over the greatest course of time.

All of the ones you point to as examples of doing something right have something in common, their size restricts access. That doesn't hold true for many areas, nor is it a function of our "protecting" efforts. We wanted to "protect" Rainier from development so now we have 2,500-6,000 people up there everyday in the summer, we've had to build a literal shitload of infrastructure to handle it. You have to wait in line to get a pic in certain spots... we've created a gross nightmare of humanity in an area that we thought we were protecting. Nothing has been "protected." You have three other large volcano's here in the PNW that are just as easy to drive to and just as close to large metropolitan areas, but because we didn't try to protect them to the nth degree you can actually still enjoy them. Hell two of them have "corporate theme parks" aka ski resorts on them, and they're still wilder, they still remain truer to a natural landscape.

YNP may offer value to wildlife due to it's vast backcountry, but the main drivers were to protect the geologic features, which all have roads leading up to them, boardwalk around them, and parking lots full of cars circling to find a space. YNP is one of the worst places I've ever been because we "protected" the F out of it and in doing so killed it. I will never go back, I will never take my kids. Look at Canyonlands and Arches, spent two weeks this year hiking, floating, and backpacking around them. Arches in particular might as well be a corporate theme park. The wait to get into the park was 4 hrs, on a Tuesday, and that was "good"! Then once you do get in, you don't get to hike where you want, you get to hike where you can find a parking space, then you share a 4-10 foot wide gravel "trail" with 500 other people. I might as well have been in Walmart on Black Friday going down the clearance isle. There is no soul in Arches, and I can zoom out all I want in WY pic and still feel something of what is there or what was once there.

Those same "advocates" are the same ones doing the killing, they're the same surface shitting behind every bush at the trailhead, illegally parking along every access point, and pioneering trails across sensitive meadows, and hiking with a stereo playing. Our special places could use a helluva lot fewer of them than they have now.

Do we need sacrificial areas, yes. As Will said, we should be pushing for them because it keeps the areas we actually like less crowded. But what kind of hypocrisy is that? When we know our current version of "protecting" is actually closer to sacrificing but advocate it anyway because "it's not OUR special place"

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get it, all these people suck. But those places would be far worse off today if they hadn't been protected yesterday. Your problem isn't the designation of places, it's that we're a nation of 330 million, plus millions of visitors.

Welcome to team Thanos.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I get it, all these people suck. But those places would be far worse off today if they hadn't been protected yesterday. Your problem isn't the designation of places, it's that we're a nation of 330 million, plus millions of visitors.

Welcome to team Thanos.

I think these two charts are basically the explanation for half the threads on the forum... point creep, tag allocation, loving it to death etc.

Looks like there might be a interesting sweet spot for hunting in 10-15 years; boomers are dead/done hunting, genx are aging out, and young millennials/genz will be peak kid little years. 2033-2038 make sure you have lots of points to burn

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not to be morbid, but yeah. Boomers aging out/retiring/dying is going to have a major impact on just about everything.

 

[Irrelevant]

I get it, all these people suck. But those places would be far worse off today if they hadn't been protected yesterday. Your problem isn't the designation of places, it's that we're a nation of 330 million, plus millions of visitors.

Welcome to team Thanos.

Yes. But the two go hand and hand now.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes. But the two go hand and hand now.

 

[noharleyyet]

BIden: Gotcha Last!

 

[MTGomer]

Not to be morbid, but yeah. Boomers aging out/retiring/dying is going to have a major impact on just about everything.

The flow of traffic, the stress levels of service industry workers, the need for large corporations to employ people in customer service to hand hold people through things that all other customers use self service for, the number of times I say to myself “if that guy was 30 years younger, I’d….”

Oh wait, I’m getting off topic.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The flow of traffic, the stress levels of service industry workers, the need for large corporations to employ people in customer service to hand hold people through things that all other customers use self service for, the number of times I say to myself “if that guy was 30 years younger, I’d….”

Oh wait, I’m getting off topic.

I mean, @neffa3 isn't wrong that places get overworked & loved to death. Yellowstone is a mess when it comes to traffic, and it's always been that way, but with increased visitation it's at a breaking point. But that breaking point isn't permanent whereas the enduring protections that the park has are. If we don't face the fact that we're far too many, recreating in tighter concentrations in areas that are still mostly primitive, then we will destroy what we're supposed to conserve.

So either we make more of these areas, wildlife refuges, national monuments, wilderness areas, national parks, or we restrict usage in the number of places we have now.

 

[Jason73]

All of the ones you point to as examples of doing something right have something in common, their size restricts access. That doesn't hold true for many areas, nor is it a function of our "protecting" efforts. We wanted to "protect" Rainier from development so now we have 2,500-6,000 people up there everyday in the summer, we've had to build a literal shitload of infrastructure to handle it. You have to wait in line to get a pic in certain spots... we've created a gross nightmare of humanity in an area that we thought we were protecting. Nothing has been "protected." You have three other large volcano's here in the PNW that are just as easy to drive to and just as close to large metropolitan areas, but because we didn't try to protect them to the nth degree you can actually still enjoy them. Hell two of them have "corporate theme parks" aka ski resorts on them, and they're still wilder, they still remain truer to a natural landscape.

YNP may offer value to wildlife due to it's vast backcountry, but the main drivers were to protect the geologic features, which all have roads leading up to them, boardwalk around them, and parking lots full of cars circling to find a space. YNP is one of the worst places I've ever been because we "protected" the F out of it and in doing so killed it. I will never go back, I will never take my kids. Look at Canyonlands and Arches, spent two weeks this year hiking, floating, and backpacking around them. Arches in particular might as well be a corporate theme park. The wait to get into the park was 4 hrs, on a Tuesday, and that was "good"! Then once you do get in, you don't get to hike where you want, you get to hike where you can find a parking space, then you share a 4-10 foot wide gravel "trail" with 500 other people. I might as well have been in Walmart on Black Friday going down the clearance isle. There is no soul in Arches, and I can zoom out all I want in WY pic and still feel something of what is there or what was once there.

Those same "advocates" are the same ones doing the killing, they're the same surface shitting behind every bush at the trailhead, illegally parking along every access point, and pioneering trails across sensitive meadows, and hiking with a stereo playing. Our special places could use a helluva lot fewer of them than they have now.

Do we need sacrificial areas, yes. As Will said, we should be pushing for them because it keeps the areas we actually like less crowded. But what kind of hypocrisy is that? When we know our current version of "protecting" is actually closer to sacrificing but advocate it anyway because "it's not OUR special place"

No doubt, they actually put a stop light in a couple years back to flow traffic into arches. Just another way to protect it i guess....

 

[Sytes]

View attachment 197498View attachment 197499

I think these two charts are basically the explanation for half the threads on the forum... point creep, tag allocation, loving it to death etc.

Looks like there might be a interesting sweet spot for hunting in 10-15 years; boomers are dead/done hunting, genx are aging out, and young millennials/genz will be peak kid little years. 2033-2038 make sure you have lots of points to burn

If public hunting is not a, Wilks Brother's, "Theme Park" aka "Hunting"...
They will manage their wildlife better than FWP and other State counterparts. Business is the key...

***
-Regarding the larger than life hee-haw in room-
The Biden political football pandering, low in-party polling, by renewing Obama's "Hut-Hut, Hike!" designation of Bears Ear, last days of his 8 years in Office... simply to create a massive National Amusement Theme Park is crap.

Pretend the timing is simply Coincidence... or recognize the political football game w/o a 4th quarter in sight...

 

[Irrelevant]

I mean, @neffa3 isn't wrong that places get overworked & loved to death. Yellowstone is a mess when it comes to traffic, and it's always been that way, but with increased visitation it's at a breaking point. But that breaking point isn't permanent whereas the enduring protections that the park has are. If we don't face the fact that we're far too many, recreating in tighter concentrations in areas that are still mostly primitive, then we will destroy what we're supposed to conserve.

So either we make more of these areas, wildlife refuges, national monuments, wilderness areas, national parks, or we restrict usage in the number of places we have now.

I guess instead of having to waive some massive political and public relations banner, proclaiming "THIS AREA" to be so special as to be worthy of this shiny sticker, we could just manage the land within the existing designations to protect sensitive resources. There's no need to have pataguchi wage a PR war, put it on their front page, have the political machine weaponize it, we could simply manage the land appropriately and not authorize open pit mining in among kivas and wall art.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess instead of having to waive some massive political and public relations banner, proclaiming "THIS AREA" to be so special as to be worthy of this shiny sticker, we could just manage the land within the existing designations to protect sensitive resources. There's no need to have pataguchi wage a PR war, put it on their front page, have the political machine weaponize it, we could simply manage the land appropriately and not authorize open pit mining in among kivas and wall art.

In the history of public lands in the United States, show me where that's worked.

 

[Irrelevant]

In the history of public lands in the United States, show me where that's worked.

The WY range.

The Kettle River Range

The "Colockum"

The Owyhee


The High Divide Country

The Red Desert


You're not going to find a lot of shiny new kiosks in these areas, but you will find soul.

Like I said previously, WSA status is as far I can support for places I care about.

 

[Ben Lamb]

the Wyoming Range had a massive target painted on it's back during the federal lease withdrawal program and the subsequent grazing lease retirements, and massive promotion from the Eastmans for the mule deer hunting. It's literally a congressionally designated conservation zone.

High Divide has several conservation programs speaking to the values of those places as well as push against WSA's within, at least 1 federally designated wildlife refuge and tons of Wildlife Management Areas, etc.

Red Desert has a lot of it developed from O&G already, and the WSA's are under constant legislative attack by the Wyoming Delegation.

None of them exist in a vacuum and they're all heavily used areas. I don't know the Kettles, but the Owyhee was a huge push to protect is as designated wilderness, which paints a huge target on it as well, no?

 

[Irrelevant]

the Wyoming Range had a massive target painted on it's back during the federal lease withdrawal program and the subsequent grazing lease retirements, and massive promotion from the Eastmans for the mule deer hunting. It's literally a congressionally designated conservation zone.

High Divide has several conservation programs speaking to the values of those places as well as push against WSA's within, at least 1 federally designated wildlife refuge and tons of Wildlife Management Areas, etc.

Red Desert has a lot of it developed from O&G already, and the WSA's are under constant legislative attack by the Wyoming Delegation.

None of them exist in a vacuum and they're all heavily used areas. I don't know the Kettles, but the Owyhee was a huge push to protect is as designated wilderness, which paints a huge target on it as well, no?

While all of those areas have risks associated with them, are those future risks > than the existing damage we're doing to the adjacent "protected" areas?

I hope the Owyhee does not get wilderness designation, or if it does, they do the entire SE corner of OR. That was it will at least get the same kind of access restrictions that the YNP backcountry gets.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While all of those areas have risks associated with them, are those future risks > than the existing damage we're doing to the adjacent "protected" areas?

I hope the Owyhee does not get wilderness designation, or if it does, they do the entire SE corner of OR. That was it will at least get the same kind of access restrictions that the YNP backcountry gets.

I'd say yes, the risks associated with major mineral plays are far greater to wildlife and the soul of wild places than being designated one way or another.

Again, you're complaining about the number of humans. That's a manageable issue. Whether or not we have the will to manage places for their conservation value remains to be seen, especially on open lands, where we actively look to defund their conservation in favor of mineral extraction.