Land Grab in San Juan County- Doodah Monument

[Gobbler36]

Picked this petition up from following Hushin and figured I'd share on here.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/doodah-no-bears-ears-national-monument

That is link to sign petition, sign and share

 

[MuleyFever]

Increase access and desecration of ancient and sacred ruins? Except it appears the Native Americans want this monument.

Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition | Join Tribes To Save America's Most Significant Unprotected Cultural Landscape

 

[realunlucky]

I agree with protecting thier culture but bears ear takes a few hundred thousand extra acres to do it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[PathFinder]

This would be a horrific loss for sportsmen. Anyone who knows jack about the Bears Ears knows it is the most bear dense place in the state, and is top 3 for deer and elk hunting as well.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[MuleyFever]

How so? Hunting is allowed on national monuments isn't it?

 

[trom2k]

Here's an interesting read regarding National Monuments and the typically allowed activities:

How We Designate Monuments | Wilderness.org

Doesn't look like hunting, fishing, or even existing oil/gas leases are affected by the designation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

They just did this in California with a lake berryessa national monument, if your a sportsman you actually should be for it. It ensures that land cannot be sold, and any pre existing rights, mineral, gas, roadways are maintained but nothing new can be introduced.

People need to do some homework before they start signing and sharing shit like this, and shame on those hush dudes for asking sportsmen to sign it. That's about as far from a "Land grab" as you can get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

How so? Hunting is allowed on national monuments isn't it?

That's what I thought.

 

[dotman]

They just did this in California with a lake berryessa national monument, if your a sportsman you actually should be for it. It ensures that land cannot be sold, and any pre existing rights, mineral, gas, roadways are maintained but nothing new can be introduced.

People need to do some homework before they start signing and sharing shit like this, and shame on those hush dudes for asking sportsmen to sign it. That's about as far from a "Land grab" as you can get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, wonder how many signed without actually researching.

 

[tipsntails7]

Exactly, wonder how many signed without actually researching.

To many.

It really pisses me off that guys who claim to represent "hunting" blindly put stuff out without actually doing any research or investigating regarding things like this.

It's got the buzz words "Obama landgrab" and apparently that's all it takes.

If anyone actually has contact with this guys they may want to tell them to get educated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

This would be a horrific loss for sportsmen. Anyone who knows jack about the Bears Ears knows it is the most bear dense place in the state, and is top 3 for deer and elk hunting as well.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I encourage you to do some reading on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PathFinder]

I encourage you to do some reading on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand corrected, I guess it's more like the Escalante, not a national park. Still don't like the federal government doing anything, ever.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

I stand corrected, I guess it's more like the Escalante, not a national park. Still don't like the federal government doing anything, ever.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Because the state of UTAH is doing wonders for hunters and anglers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MuleyFever]

Because the state of UTAH is doing wonders for hunters and anglers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, Utah can't wait to get their hands on our public lands and sell them off.

 

[tttoadman]

I get skeptical about anything that uses the term "land grab". If somebody wants to post something about some proposed "land use" issues, perhaps people would be more receptive. I learn a lot from the folks on this forum that are more educated on the politics and land use issues. I have learned to keep my opinions and emotions in check until a thread like this gets down to the real facts.

 

[realunlucky]

What has the federal government done for utah lately?This isn't utah trying to manage federal land this is about who can access and use this areas resources. Seems utah is targeted by each administration for a national monument. Bear ear is a gross over reach as a token qesture to native americans. To bad compromise is long gone in the process. Have you been to been to bears ear spent time in any of utah numerous monuments? I spend plenty of time in the proposed area bear ear and frankly I've never messed with with or seen anyone mess with any native artifacts. It's against the law even without this proposal right? Guess status quo is only ok if your the group getting pandered too. Wish you guys could experience a few national monuments in back yard every 8 years. Is every thing horrible now nope, would a new monument fix any problems yes for a single user group. It's all about access and what is considered a travel route. Come on down and visit some communities within the proposal and get a feel from people that it will truly effect. Support it if you want but yes I hope you research it first not everything is all rosey up close and personal to the issues. Luckily for us decisions are made from far away and places with 52 electoral votes

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

This is a complex issue take a quick a look at the groups that approve and those that oppose. Just pissed me of that those affected the most have the lest amount of input on the outcome. That and it's always a lame duck sitter that proposes these monuments

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

What has the federal government done for utah lately?This isn't utah trying to manage federal land this is about who can access and use this areas resources. Seems utah is targeted by each administration for a national monument. Bear ear is a gross over reach as a token qesture to native americans. To bad compromise is long gone in the process. Have you been to been to bears ear spent time in any of utah numerous monuments? I spend plenty of time in the proposed area bear ear and frankly I've never messed with with or seen anyone mess with any native artifacts. It's against the law even without this proposal right? Guess status quo is only ok if your the group getting pandered too. Wish you guys could experience a few national monuments in back yard every 8 years. Is every thing horrible now nope, would a new monument fix any problems yes for a single user group. It's all about access and what is considered a travel route. Come on down and visit some communities within the proposal and get a feel from people that it will truly effect. Support it if you want but yes I hope you research it first not everything is all rosey up close and personal to the issues. Luckily for us decisions are made from far away and places with 52 electoral votes

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I guess I don't see how for hunters this is a detriment. Every single activity that you do now you can do after it is declared a monument. What it does do is ensure that that land stays public, no new mineral or gas drilling will pop up, and no encroachment on the land happens.

I've been to Utah, I don't live there, but I've spent ALOT of time in berryessa national monument, it's exactly the same for me as it was prior to being a monument, hell backcountry hunters and anglers, which I'm apart of was one of many driving forces behind the designation.
Couple that with the above petition not even being accurate, and in not seeing the issue.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

That issue of hunter access is the same it's a non issue, why support it if it's a single focus? So why does this benefit you? Just curious of a point of view from the outside looking in

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

That issue of hunter access is the same it's a non issue. So why does this benefit you? Just curious of point of view from the outside looking in

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I don't like when it is stated by hunters that it is a land grab and will hinder access to hunting areas because it won't. I apply in Utah every year and honestly by the time I get to hunt it, it seems either I won't have any public land to do it on, or no tags will be available. I admit I am not dialed in to everything Utah, but this designation should it happen is far from a land grab to close off access to hunters. National monuments don't work like that, and nothing in the resolution from the tribes aims to limit anything besides encroachment on the land by energy footprints. Which the designation would already insure.

It also won't take peoples grazing rights, they won't be seizing anyone's land with eminent domain, of anything local businesses may get a bump of the designation goes through, as it will be another "destination" for people that travel to Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk