Utah: Controversy Over Creation of a New National Park

[Olden]

" President Obama is weighing whether and how he can leave his own permanent imprint on history by designating about 2 million acres of land, known as the Bears Ears, as a national monument.

And despite the uniformly acknowledged historical significance of the area, some people regard the conservation efforts by the White House as classic federal overreach. In the current-era conflict between Washington and rural Westerners, the idea of a Bears Ears national monument has produced warnings of a possible armed insurrection. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mepage%2Fstory

[YT]EsLkzUjOCUM[/YT]

[YT]EEK3gAiK0nI[/YT]

[JoshinMO]

I thought that was private property.

Most of the conflict you mentioned later in you're post was about what was supposed to be public use but federally owned. Heard the problem recently which finnicum used property and that wasn't and didn't turn out well.

The thing now days is the majority of "the people" are ok with overreach and feel they have no choice.

Probably last thing i will write before deported lol.

But, at the same time most people would like to see this place and artifacts ETC. preserved.

[JoshinMO]

Mybad, i see it's federally owned and managed. Seen something on pbs about this place i believe, a couple guy's took the cameramen on a tour and talked about the looting, i had the idea they owned it.

[Olden]

With the amount of looting and destruction that's taking place there already, I'd like to see it designated as a national park. Without strong regulations, capitalism will eventually wind up destroying what is still fairly pristine. There's plenty of other places to do donuts with the pickup, and shoot Budweiser cans I think.

[sailorjoe]

I don't want all the public lands in the west turned into parks and monuments. There are plenty of laws in place to protect those sites that I think must be under BLM management. Give BLM funding and they can do a good job of protecting those sites. They have archeologists, rangers, etc. There is no need to add the greatly increased restrictions on public land use brought about by designating that area as a national park or monument. Utah is crammed full of national parks and monuments as it is.

[Olden]

Getting the money seems to be a big IF.. rangers seem to be few and far between. Mining, oil wells, and ranching will dictate the general attitudes to opening up and use of the land: followed shortly by every type of off road vehicle known. There's also our ever expanding population to deal with: projected to be 438 million by 2050 I think. A few links for consideration

Difference between national parks and national forests

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/river-of-no-return-national-parks-national-forests-and-u-s-wildernesses/7667/

U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNa0ahyNDKc

Just one of many instances that shows the general growing attitudes toward the land and disrespect of others.

http://fox13now.com/2016/05/23/blm-to-investigate-high-on-life-groups-water-skiing-stunt-on-salt-flats/

[sailorjoe]

Almost 70 % of Utah is owned by the Federal government. Much of that is in national parks and monuments with very strict regulations on what the public can and can not do. There is an insatiable demand by environmentalists who live primarily in the highly populated areas of the west and east coast of the US to tie up even more. The sensitive archeological sites in the area can be protected without tying up all the adjacent land with unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions. The amount of land in Utah controlled by the Federal government is about the amount in the entire state of Illinois. What would Illinois folks feel about having 70% of their state controlled by Uncle Sam? Turn it all back to tall grass prairie like much of it was prior to 1800 and to heck with the corn, soybeans and grain.