Seems like a good thing, protecting the environment. What's the issue in a nut-shell?
First I will say the lands need to be protected. I love traveling the roads in the west, the views, the fact that there is not anyone around for miles (except when followed by a bunch of Hummers), the wildlife, etc. And I don’t necessarily trust the states to manage the land either. There are many examples of how the state has closed off-roads, and allowed building on a piece of land we all wish would have remained free of any obstructions. (Lion’s back is a great example for those living or have visited Moab. It was closed by the States school trust…and I hear they are actually getting ready to build.
I used to live east of the MS and in fact, MI. However after moving and living in UT for six year, and now ID for two I have a different view of things.
How would it be if you lived in Grand Rapids and all the land surrounding the city was Federal and it was up to the Federal government to allow passage on the roads and the state could not use the land for uses such as building, oil/gas/ mining etc.?
What you don’t really realize, until you come out here is that the Federal government already owns 70% of Utah (whereas in MI it is 10%) and NV is 85%.
That is a high percentage of the state that needs Federal approvals for doing anything on that land, whether it is off-road trails, mining, oil/gas, taking a poop, etc. And that is a lot of land that the state cannot exercise their rights on and allow building, mining, etc., thus cutting their tax base.
UT did receive 37 Million dollars in payment from the federal government in 2016 from a program called Payment in Lieu of Taxes due to the lands controlled by the Federal government that the states/local governments cannot collect taxes on. The figure is based on many factors such as loss of mining, taxes, oil/gas drilling, etc., and is complicated. But it does not come close to the amount the state was not allowed to collect.
Yes, places like Moab depend on tourism to keep the economy alive; however due to tourism, the costs of living in Moab are way too expensive for many to get by. (I have often thought Moab would have been better off if it remained a Uranium and Copper mining town. I say that because the tourists drove me crazy….except for those who I know.)
The monument designation will affect some of the off-road trails, but not many. It will probably affect the lumber industry in the Abajo Mountains, but I do believe they will have to continue to do fuel management of the forests to keep down the likelihood of a large forest fire; or at least I would hope so. But that will be the USFS problems.
From talking with a few at the BLM office in Moab (which is also the office for the Canyon Country district (which I used to work for) that encompasses the entire monument area, (minus the USFS lands), it appears many items will have to be decided upon in the future. But they want to keep the impact to the minimum for off-roaders, hikers, bikers, rafters, basically tourists and the tourist industry.
A lot of the future input to the Monument will be from the new administration and who is appointed to the high positions. The guy from MT who Trump has nominated for Secretary of the Interior will be over the BLM. I have heard from a friend in MT who personally knows him that he tends to be a person who does not want to close down the lands for use and believes they are there to be used by everyone. And he is an avid hunter and an ex-Navy Seal. But a lot will boil down to who is placed into the position of the head of the BLM.
Right now the Dept of Interior is run by a complete moronic environmentalist, so we will all have to sit back and see what happens in the future. She will be gone in less than a month.
Personally, I do not believe there will be that much effect on the Moab off-road community. As I noted earlier, a monument controlled by the BLM and in this case it appears the BLM and the USFS is nowhere as bad as it would be if controlled by the National Park Service.
As I noted before the NFS would close trails, not allow dogs to be in the backcountry areas (even in a vehicle), would limit camping areas and just generally be an entity that exercises too much control over the lands. The BLM and the USFS tend not to have problems with dogs so long as they are kept under control, and in the case of the BLM, usually closes roads with input from the local governments.
Basically, everyone I know out here wants to keep the majority of the lands like they are, but also believe in States’ rights to have some say in the matter of the lands. In the case of Moab and the BLM, the BLM did work with the local governments on most of the off-road areas in Grand County. Whereas with a monument they might not works together that great.
The one big thing that a monument inhibits is any new mining, oil/gas drilling.
Maps might help show how much lands states actually have control of. Between the BLM, Forest Service, National Parks, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife some of the western states have very little control over the lands.
Eastern States Federal lands
Western States Federal Lands
Alaska/Hawaii Federal Lands
