Bears Ears National Monument Draft Plan
|
A draft management plan was released for comments a month ago: The BLM is hosting a series of meetings starting 4/16: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2020347/510 Seems important... |
|
This does seem important. Anyone know if entities like Access Fund or Friends of Indian Creek are in the mix here? Based on a quick review, it seems like potentially significant (and disappointing) changes are coming re: bolting pre-approval (for new routes/new anchors) and dispersed camping. Also, FWIW, strong disagree that Alternative C sounds interesting. Permits for Indian Creek would be a massive loss. |
|
This document is 678 pages and I’ll dive deeper later, but the things that stand out to me that I’m not excited about are 1) Individual Special Recreation Permits ( ISRP) for climbing 2) potential elimination of dispersed camping 3) BLM pre-approval of new anchors 4) seasonal closures The Monument is vast (as is the document) and is an attempt to manage an enormous variety of terrain/activities, including river corridors, archeological sites, firewood collection, etc etc. These are important and I support the effort. But climbers need to speak up now, in significant numbers, if there’s results we want to see. |
|
Perusing through this, it's a mammoth document. For those skimming, there are basically Alternatives A-E. A is do nothing, B has some protections in place, D is the most restrictive, and E takes into account most of the Tribal Nations' wishes. Much of the areas are well south of Indian Creek. Alternative E has a few interesting things, like this on page 2-102: And on 2-103: For those that can do the math, that most of the free camping along 211, and a good chunk along Beef Basin. 2-108, some seasonal closures, locations not specified (or I don't know how to interpret this part): Page 2-115: Anyone who's had to deal with that process anywhere knows that that's a non-starter. That's the end of Indian Creek route development. Alternative C on page 3-23 appears to be a ban on climbing without authorization: There's more, but looking at the alternatives, there's already a recreation plan in place for Alternative A along with protections. The problem with resource destruction has been a lack of enforcement of the already existing plans. |
|
For those interested there will be multiple public hearings to discuss and voice questions/comments/concerns. Here is a link to the various dates and times. Next one is in person in Blanding tomorrow (23rd) from 6-8pm. Next virtual meeting is May 2nd from 6-7:30. Here's the link to the schedule: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2020347/510 |
|
I thought one of the main purposes of the monument was to protect climbing access, not restrict it… |
|
Ben B wrote: Hence my comment over on the Dolores River National Monument thread but someone decided I was a MAGAniac for daring to suggest it was a "federal land grab." The main purpose of the monument was to protect cultural and natural resources. We were just hoping that climbing got ushered in. It's a similar problem we had over here with Red Rock Canyon in NV. The previous assistant BLM manager said in a public meeting (2021 if I recall correctly) "the purpose of RRNCA is for CONSERVATION" and then went on to elaborate how that means limiting activities and recreation not only for conservation but also for "safety." |
|
Charlie S wrote: So why did the access fund push so hard for bears ears if they were only merely hoping that climbing got ushered in? For years they were saying that climbing in the creek would be totally in jeopardy without the monument. Oh the irony Is the AF now pushing back against these awful proposals? |
|
Ben B wrote: Remains to be seen. The AF has been very helpful with the Red Rock issues. It appears to me that typically, the AF will work behind the scenes but will wait until the week-of-comments-due before posting about it. The real irony is that when Utah protested the Monument (they said it would be bad for recreation), major retailers (REI) and companies (Patagonia, Arc'teryx) and organizations (Outdoor Retailer) boycotted the state and moved the OR show to Colorado. In fact, an industry insider told me that manufacturers were strongarmed by a certain retailer to boycott the show until it left Utah or else they wouldn't sell their products. The AF's stance at the time was very adversarial towards Utah and anyone who felt the same way. So while I appreciate the AF's efforts in recent legislation, I will never support the AF financially simply because of this issue. To quote Rev. Jeremiah Wright, slightly modified, "[Climbing]'s chickens are coming home to roost!" |
|
Charlie S wrote: I stopped supporting the AF when they rolled over for all the restrictions that have been popping up in national parks like rmnp and Yosemite |
|
Rob Dillon wrote: I agree that I wouldn't be excited about Individual Special Recreation Permits or BLM pre-approval of new anchors. However, I think that it's super reasonable to have seasonal closures for nesting raptors or traditional use/ceremonies. The idea that climbers should be able to climb wherever or whenever they want is a little silly to me. It also seems pretty reasonable to eliminate certain specific dispersed camping areas (not all of them). Folks probably shouldn't be camping in riparian areas or other areas where they might be causing significant resource damage. Just because someone can pull off the road and camp in a given area doesn't mean that they should. Climbers aren't always going to be able to accurately determine if there's sensitive species or important cultural resources in an area. |
|
Eli P wrote: I agree. Unfortunately, agencies such as the BLM or NPS are not known for making "reasonable" policies (see: big wall permits, timed entry reservations, etc). How much do you want to bet that the permits for climbing in IC will be issued via rec.gov? |
|
Ben B wrote: Big Wall Permits in Yosemite are free with no quota and aren't issued via rec.gov, due to climber involvement with the process. That seems very reasonable to me and wayyyyyy better than the permit process for rafting, hunting, fishing, and many of other ways of recreating. Frankly, timed entry reservations are a bummer, but in a lot of the places that have those measures there are ways around it such as going in before or after the operating hours of the entry stations or going in the shoulder season. It's not the end of the world. |
|
The Access Fund has posted on this and honestly, it’s laughable. They didn’t speak to several other significant issues mentioned above. Here is an excerpt of a few (not all) of their closing bullet points:
We appreciate being allowed to recreate? If this was in the cards, the AF has truly failed. As per the Yosemite stuff, fees are now an acceptable path forward? Who will get the fees? Tribal nations? The BLM? Will it be like some other hikes in the southwest where you have to pay some dudes in beat up SUVs to pass their plot of land? Programmatic authorization for FAs? This is the one that takes the cake. Anyone who has done any development there knows the immense amount of untapped potential. Yet most never venture past the already established lines. If it’s anything like the City of Rocks, ID plan, that put an end to almost all new route development. Too bad, there are some real gems out there. Who decides if a route is worth it? At some point, the committee (likely not made of climbers) would say “so what? It’s just another crack.” That’s what all my non climber friends say, at least. Alternative E is a bad plan for Indian Creek, climbers, recreationalists, campers, state residents, out of state visitors, and anyone who wants to enjoy the freedom that southern Utah has to offer. I have had many a defining experience in Indian Creek due to its freedom, scale, and opportunity. Take that away and it has lost its magic. Advocate for Alternative A. Also, again, in conjunction with all the nasty things the Access Fund said about the state of Utah back when Utah was fighting this monument, the Access Fund has shown again that it’s more interested in politics, virtue signaling, and advocating for fees and permits. It’s not too late to change direction, friends. [Written on my phone, so forgive any obvious misspellings, omissions, or grammar mistakes taken over by autocorrect.] |
|
If even Alt B (nearly the lowest level of restriction) requires approval for any anchor, then it's the same extreme proposal as that being pushed by the NPS and USNF. Yet now they are applying it to a huge area that is only partly wilderness. A better idea is that if there are certain limited areas requiring special approval, then those need to be clearly designated and the exact reason explained, and not affect the entire monument. |
|
I think all the hand-wringing about federal overeach and limitations to climbers' freedom missplaced, short-sighted, and selfish. The debate is not about federal overeach, because the land belongs to the federal government. The Antiquities Act that establishd this monument alows the president to establish a momument only on federal land. It's not as if the evil buerocrats in Wasington "stole" land from the good people of Utah. The debate is more about how federal land should be managed, and how different uses should be balanced. The BLM and USFS both work to promote multiple use. The question always becomes, what uses should be permitted and which discouraged. Now, as much as permits and restrictions and fees are tiresome,I would prefer these necessary evils to leasing that land to private entities for grazing, oil, gas, and mineral developments, or other commerecial ventures. As much as people might love to roll up in their converted vans and came in the desert, or wander wherever they like and place a tent (or a bolt, or a anchor) that's neither a realistic nor sustainable use of public land. As to the Access Fund, I think they are not advocating sensibly, not blindly pushing their agenda to the exclusion of everything else, but working with the understanding that climbing is just one kind of use, and to be honest a rather low priority use when balanced against land conservation and protecting native territory. The fact that the proposal recognizes the historic and cultural importance of climbing at all is a positive, probably due in part to the effforts of the access fund. Climbers, like everybody else, need to respect this space, and that might mean using it less, or using it in a different way, than they did in the past. |
|
Charlie S wrote: Yeah, I assumed that that was the bedrock assumption of the AF pushing for the monument in the first place. This language makes it sound like we're a bunch of feudal serfs grateful for crumbs from our lords.
I can almost guarantee it won't go to the tribes and instead will go to some fat cat from Booz Allen Hamilton.
Exactly. When a republican was in the White House, they came out guns a blazing. Now that a democratic is there, seems they’re ok with pretty much anything the feds say. The AF has truly lost its way. |
|
Bruno Schull wrote: Are you ok with staying home so I can take your spot and climb there more often? |
|
Ben B wrote: Are you OK if they lease the land to a rancher, oil and gas company, or private concession, who puts up a fence and has armed gaurds? |
|
Had to do some wordsmithing to get my comment under 5000 characters, but here it is if anyone else wants to address similar concerns:
|
|
Bruno Schull wrote: So in your mind, the only possible outcomes for Indian creek are either losing access to private interests, or losing access to the feds?
|