Bears Ears National Monument Draft Plan

Ben B 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? 

I don't see it that way Ben.  I see it as loosing access and having the area degraded and destroyed by private interests (see for example the proposed Telecom tower) vs having the land protected and shared by the Federal Government.  The proposal does not block access, it places reasonable restrictions on access (for example, no camping next to water). 

In my opinion, the only reason this became controversial at all is because the repulican government wants to consolidate power by decrying federal overreach.

Bruno Schull wrote:

I don't see it that way Ben.  I see it as loosing access and having the area degraded and destroyed by private interests (see for example the proposed Telecom tower) vs having the land protected and shared by the Federal Government.  The proposal does not block access, it places reasonable restrictions on access (for example, no camping next to water). 

In my opinion, the only reason this became controversial at all is because the repulican government wants to consolidate power by decrying federal overreach.

The draft is not a single proposal.  It is FIVE possible alternatives.  Which range from low restrictions to very high restrictions.  The whole point of public review and input is to help determine what is reasonable, justifiable, and minimally restrictive.  Automatically conceding that "conservation" is always the only real value does not actually examine the basis for potential restrictions. Blocking a rap anchor is "blocking access."  Seasonal closures are a type of "blocking access,"  and are not to be taken lightly or conceded to special interest groups.  Shutting down dispersed camping is a type of "blocking access."   Requiring permits is a type of "blocking access." 

Hey Tom, 

I would use words like "restrict" or "limit" or "regulate" instead of "block" or "prohbibit" to describe the proposals.  There are places people will be able to camp, and mechanims to place anchors etc., just not with as much freedom as previously. 

I don't understand the idea that people should be able to use public land however they want with no restrictions--it's a commons, and different needs have to be balanced.  That takes regulation and compromise.

As to the "special interest groups," I think the main group here are the Native Americans who make up more than half of the population in San juan county.  The Native Americans are the locals, and I think that for that reasons, and because of history, their wishes should be weighed heavily against those of others who travel there "merely" to recreate. 

Basically, I just can't muster much sympathjy for people who think it's their right to camp or place hardware wherever and whenever they please. 

Climbing, recreating, drawing strength and inspiration from wild places is important, but people do this in different ways, and we all have to share.

I’m not against doing away with the free for all or adding some regulations per se. you shouldn’t be allowed to tear up the desert with your vehicle, defecate near a water body, or disturb artifacts, for instance. 

but the feds have shown over and over again their way of enacting regulations is absolutely fucking terrible.

Having to get a big wall permit, in person, 4 days in advance? Having an experience similar to buying concert tickets, just to get into RMNP, with no guarantee of a parking spot? Paying $20+ per person per night to sleep in the dirt, in a campground with no amenities aside from a pit toilet with no TP? And having all the aforementioned fees be administered by a military contractor? Where exactly is all this money going? 

I think I’m not alone when I say that I feel ripped off by all this bullshit. I’m all for conservation/protection but I’m also strongly against corruption and ripping off the taxpayers for something they already pay for and are thus entitled to. 

A message from FOIC:

Only 3 weeks left to comment on draft Bears Ears management plan

 Climbers know Bears Ears National Monument for the world-class cracks of Indian Creek and more remote climbing adventures in areas like Valley of the Gods. But this 1.3+ million-acre monument means far more than recreation for Indigenous Tribes who advocated for its creation and are leading the creation of a new draft Management Plan that is now out for public comment until June 11th 

 Friends of Indian Creek welcomes the extensive Indigenous Traditional Knowledge that was built into the planning process and hopes climbers will support preservation of this sacred cultural landscape through responsible climbing, camping, and hiking following Visit with Respect principles. 

 Running more than 1,000 pages in length, this draft plan will direct future management of Bears Ears for decades to come. However, many details of future management will be worked out in the coming years via “implementation level plans.” While we don’t expect climbers to read the entire document, we encourage you to send comments to the BLM and Forest Service which jointly manage the monument in collaboration with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Commission. 

 5 Things you should know about the plan:

 The plan includes 5 potential alternatives, with Alternative E, which is the Tribal Alternative, being named as the agencies’ “preferred alternative.” While this indicates the preference of the agency to adopt a final plan that resembles Alternative E, it’s likely there will be changes before the final plan is adopted, which may include components from other alternatives. 

1. The “preferred alternative” calls for close collaboration between land managers and Tribes in determining future management actions, many of which are not clearly defined in this plan but will be worked out in coming years. It will be crucial for climbers to be involved for years to come in working with Tribes and land managers to find practical solutions to protect the landscape and preserve climbing access. 
2. The plan would create a new permit system for placing new anchors. While allowing maintenance of existing anchors without any permit, new climbs would need to be approved by the agencies prior to placement of new bolted anchors. Given that climbers have already developed thousands of climbs in the Monument, Friends of Indian Creek supports this new system, which would ensure that new climbs do not create impacts on cultural sites or for wildlife, reducing future conflicts that could risk climbing access However, the process by which new climbs would be analyzed is not detailed in the plan, nor does it indicate how long it would take for a requested permit to be processed. So, we encourage climbers to submit comments that describe the need for a fair, transparent process based on clear objectives and timelines. 
3. The plan calls for a new day-use permit system for all “canyons” in the Monument. While it’s not clear if Indian Creek would be considered a “canyon” where a day-use permit would be required, there is a chance that climbers may need to acquire a day-use permit (likely at a trailhead) in the future prior to climbing. While there is some history of requiring visitors to pay for day-use permits in Bears Ears (a day-use fee has been required on Cedar Mesa for decades), these permits would likely be free, at least in the beginning. Many climbing areas around the country require similar permits, but this would be a big change for how climbers have experienced the Creek. 
4. The plan calls for pets to be leashed at all times everywhere in the Monument. As many climbers love their canine companions and bring them climbing with them, this would be a big change. Clearly, rowdy, poorly-behaved dogs are a problem at the crag, and Friends of Indian Creek encourages dog owners to leave poorly-behaved dogs at home. However, requiring dogs to be leashed in areas where cows are allowed to roam free and ATVs can blaze down trails, will make some feel like dog owners are being unfairly targeted by this plan. Climbers who own dogs may want to comment on this provision and encourage less restrictive leash policies, like requiring leashes at trailheads, cultural sites, and campgrounds, but not a blanket leash requirement.

 Comments on the plan must be made through the E-planning website by June 11th. We encourage climbers to submit constructive comments that support honoring Tribal concerns and protecting this landscape for future generations with practical, fair, and enforceable policies.

How will the day use permits be issued in the future? Where exactly will the fees be going? Is there a limit to the number of climbers per trailhead per day?

Ben B wrote:

I’m not against doing away with the free for all or adding some regulations per se. you shouldn’t be allowed to tear up the desert with your vehicle, defecate near a water body, or disturb artifacts, for instance. 

I get it Ben.  I also think that wild camping should be permitted, somehow.  Could they not issue permits for wild camping, somewhat like issuing wilderness permits?  They could also have restrictions about group size or vehicles, for example, you culdn't go in with 10 people on ATVs, but you could hike in with a small group.  I would totally support that, if it was an option somewhere in the plan.  

But the feds have shown over and over again their way of enacting regulations is absolutely fucking terrible.

Again, I understand, but I push back on the idea that everything the "feds" or more broadly civil administration, is always inefficient and chaotic, and private enterprise is always effecient and superior.  I think that's part of the big-bussiness, de-regulated capitalism, trickle down economics BS we've been sold for decades.  I know you're not saying this directly, but there is a sub-text or history behind your statements.  Once a private enterprise is involved, it's all about profit.  At least with a civil organization, theoretically the goal is to work with and for everybody.  So, of course processes could be improved, but some regulation and institutions are needed to manage this land.

Having to get a big wall permit, in person, 4 days in advance? Having an experience similar to buying concert tickets, just to get into RMNP, with no guarantee of a parking spot? Paying $20+ per person per night to sleep in the dirt, in a campground with no amenities aside from a pit toilet with no TP? 

See my two points above.  Not all government regulation is terrible.  Having to apply for a permit in advance doesn't seem so bad.  Wild camping is awesome and there should be a way to make this possible.  

And having all the aforementioned fees be administered by a military contractor? 

Is that true?  Is the idea to out-source managament to a contractor?  If so I think that's terrible.  It's just another example of how government and democracy are captive to big bussiness.  In my view, the monument should be administered by a government agency, preferably employing, training, and supporting local people.  

Where exactly is all this money going? 

Hopefully, it will go back into the monument, and improving services and stewardship for everyone.

I think I’m not alone when I say that I feel ripped off by all this bullshit. I’m all for conservation/protection but I’m also strongly against corruption and ripping off the taxpayers for something they already pay for and are thus entitled to. 

I agree there are troublesome aspects (private contractors, legitimate questions of where money will go, and so on).  But, as I said before, I don't think that just because one is a tax-paying citizen one is entitled"to use all public lands as one sees fits.  You, or we, are entitled to question and discuss and participate in how public lands are used, but when due process is followed then we are bound by the regulations of the government that we have.  

More generally, many people obviously have different ideas about what this land is and how it should be used, and what we are seeing now is the messy demoncratic process of trying to figure out how to balance everybody's views.

I agree with a lot of the stuff you just wrote, so let me try to explain why I'm so upset.

Bruno Schull wrote:

Is that true?  Is the idea to out-source managament to a contractor?  If so I think that's terrible.  It's just another example of how government and democracy are captive to big bussiness.  In my view, the monument should be administered by a government agency, preferably employing, training, and supporting local people.  

Yes it's true. We literally cannot escape government corruption, even outdoors. Rec.gov is run by Booz Allen Hamilton, a military contractor. So every time you use that website (which is nearly ubiquitous amongst federally owned land at this point), I have to question where those fees are going. It's seriously sketchy. So please excuse my suspicion whenever I hear word of the feds implementing a fee for some area.

Hopefully, it will go back into the monument, and improving services and stewardship for everyone.

See above. I have a very hard time believing that any fees that I pay through rec.gov go back into any park, monument, etc. 

Comments should absolutely include the stipulation that rec.gov has nothing to do with the administration of B E N M.

Ben B wrote:

I agree with a lot of the stuff you just wrote, so let me try to explain why I'm so upset.

Yes it's true. We literally cannot escape government corruption, even outdoors. Rec.gov is run by Booz Allen Hamilton, a military contractor. So every time you use that website (which is nearly ubiquitous amongst federally owned land at this point), I have to question where those fees are going. It's seriously sketchy. So please excuse my suspicion whenever I hear word of the feds implementing a fee for some area.

See above. I have a very hard time believing that any fees that I pay through rec.gov go back into any park, monument, etc. 

Wow, Ben, that's seriosuly F**ked up. 

When I read your wods about the "Feds" I unfairly interpreted that as a general comment about federal vs state control or whatever, but if this is to be administered by some for profit contractor, then I would definitely reconsider my position. 

I still feel that the monument should exist, that use should be managed, but not by a contractor.

A food concession in a national park? Ok, I can understand that.  But offloading the entire administration of a public entity to a private company, especially when people need jobs, pride, investment in and connection to local resources...really depressing.  

I will process.  Thanks for enlightening me.

Bruno Schull wrote:

Wow, Ben, that's seriosuly F**ked up. 

When I read your wods about the "Feds" I unfairly interpreted that as a general comment about federal vs state control or whatever, but if this is to be administered by some for profit contractor, then I would definitely reconsider my position. 

I still feel that the monument should exist, that use should be managed, but not by a contractor.

A food concession in a national park? Ok, I can understand that.  But offloading the entire administration of a public entity to a private company, especially when people need jobs, pride, investment in and connection to local resources...really depressing.  

I will process.  Thanks for enlightening me.

You betcha. It's really depressing :( 

When you register through rec.gov, there is sometimes a fee that does go back to the govt, and then also other fees that go to Booz Allen Hamilton, which is a for-profit company that built and runs rec.gov at the request of the govt. The other fees are supposed to pay for the operation of the site (instead of the govt cutting BAH a check).

The other fees are almost certainly higher than they need to be, and arguably the govt should be running online reservations itself without creating profits for a private company.

All that said, even if rec.gov went away tomorrow and BAH did not get one more cent, there would still be the core issues of visitor volume, resource protection, competing user groups, etc. RMNP has timed tickets for those reasons, not because Booz Allen Hamilton said so. There would still be management plans and concerns about them.

In terms of comments… any question a person can ask is a great idea for a comment. So if someone wants to know “how will day use permits be issued,” then that person is ready to file a comment that says “I request that day use permits be self-issued at a kiosk, not through recreation.gov.” Or whatever their preferred answer is. No one knows the answers to all the questions yet, but we know who will make those decisions. And they are asking for input.

Disclaimer: I know little about Indian Creek specifically; the above comments are hopefully helpful in general.

The AAC submitted their comments on the management plan: https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2024/6/11/wii7rbk7qgd7w7azora29oriet1ul3 

Regarding the permitting, they wrote: 

“The proposal to develop a Monument permit system that would require a permit for all “private overnight and day use in all canyons”[12] is a dramatic departure from current practices.”

But then later they wrote:

“However, we do generally support increased management of the resources at BENM and understand permitting may be a requisite component of efficient management of the resources.”

So, permitting is a “dramatic departure” yet “may be a requisite component”. Seems like they are wanting to have it both ways or are being very noncommittal on this issue. I wish that one of the groups that are supposedly representing the climbing community would grow a pair for once. 

Rob Dillon wrote:

Not impressed with the advocacy here.  Why did we go to bat for the monument, again?

It was political. Blue president sticking it to a Red state.

Some of you are conveniently forgetting a couple things:
- BENM was initially created with the input and wishes of the local Native Americans in mind. (Yes, I know this is also political, but it’s more complicated than red vs blue.)

- Climbers aren’t the only user group.  

I want to hear the input of the Native Americans. Do they support permits for climbers? Do they support sending fee dollars to a military contractor? 

Ben B wrote:

I want to hear the input of the Native Americans. Do they support permits for climbers? Do they support sending fee dollars to a military contractor? 

From Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition:

“This draft RMP signifies a critical shift in the sustainable management of public lands towards incorporating the leadership and traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples whose ancestors successfully stewarded these lands and resources for thousands of years. Alternative E, the alternative that most aligns with Tribal values, best reflects an ecosystem-based approach and the Tribal input provided during the period leading up to the release of the draft RMP.”

This is vague as hell, but they’re obviously going with option E. I haven’t read it all.
Don’t get me wrong Ben B, the Booz Allen stuff is disgusting. 

Bale wrote:

 
Don’t get me wrong Ben B, the Booz Allen stuff is disgusting. 

Thanks man 

So the Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement is out. If you commented before, you may comment again during the 30-day 'protest period' which ends Nov. 4.

They've more or less adopted Alternative E, the Tribes' preference.  Of interest to the majority of climbers are:

Page 159 Dispersed camping: • The agencies would inventory and monitor dispersed camping sites and areas. • No dispersed camping would be allowed within 0.25 mile of surface water, unless in an existing or designated campsite or area. • No dispersed camping would be allowed within 0.5 mile of a developed recreation area. • The agencies, working collaboratively with the BEC, would identify areas through implementation-level planning that are available to dispersed camping and areas that are limited to designated sites. • The agencies, working collaboratively with the BEC, would designate campsites and areas to help guide and focus visitors to appropriate places. The campsites and areas would be designed to protect BENM objects, including cultural resources, wildlife, and water resources, as informed by Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. • The agencies, working collaboratively with the BEC, would remove and reclaim existing campsites and areas, as necessary, to protect BENM objects, including cultural resources, wildlife, and water resources, as informed by Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. 

P 160 Replacement of existing bolts, anchors, and fixed gear would be allowed on existing climbing and canyoneering routes as needed for safety reasons without prior authorization. Encourage hardware used for fixed anchors would be of the highest quality per industry standards and installed to manufacturer specifications. 

• Any new climbing or canyoneering routes that require the placement of bolts, anchors or fixed gear requires approval from the agencies, who would work collaboratively with the BEC to determine whether the route is appropriate to protect BENM objects, including cultural resources and wildlife, as informed by Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. Until a process for approving new routes is established, new routes would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

This one's interesting:

P194 Most recreation uses and management actions are unlikely to impact geological resources in the Monument. Rock climbing is the primary form of recreation that is likely to have impacts to geological resources due to improperly placed gear damaging rocks or from climbing on wet sandstone, which could damage and break rocks. If site-specific impacts occur, all alternatives would allow for the closure or rerouting of climbing routes, which would help prevent further damage to geological resources.

There's more, lots more. Most of it is quite reasonable in terms of resource protection, although folks who don't have a cow in this fight might see it as being awfully generous to those who do. Most OHV routes will remain open, although I haven't delved into the maps on that one. Rock stacking (!)  is lumped in with BASE jumping and highlining: denied (P161). In this sense, we're lucky, I suppose, that rock climbing is accepted at all, given that "Activities inconsistent with the protection of BENM objects and the Bears Ears cultural landscape, as determined in collaboration with the BEC and in accordance with Tribal expertise and Traditional Indigenous Knowledge would be prohibited in BENM. The public would be prohibited from engaging in the following activities; launching or landing of paragliders, hang gliders, base jumpers, and wing-suit flyers, highlining, geocaching, and rock stacking."  So good thing we got in there early, even though we might have some quibbles.

Those quibbles: I, for one, would like more clarity in the new-anchor approval process- will I ever get an answer? can we approve zones with no archeological/cultural resources, or is this going to be  crack-by-crack approval? Or, as the Friends of Indian Creek put it, "the need for a fair, transparent process based on clear objectives and timelines."  Likewise, I'm looking forward to clear delineation of where dispersed camping will and won't be allowed.

Anyhow, there it is folks.

Thanks for keeping us informed. I’m surprised that livestock grazing isn’t limited more. The rock stacking is interesting, I’m assuming that includes cairns for trail markers? Do we know when this will take effect?