Opinion: Great Rides Don't Always Have Happy Endings

Dec 14, 2017
by Richard Cunningham  
Moab


I was recently invited to ride in Moab, Utah. The folks at Patagonia were going to demo some of their 2018 mountain bike range and, “Oh, by the way, we’d like to take you on a tour of Bears Ears National Monument while you are there.”

I’ll rarely pass up a chance to revisit Moab. I was more excited, though, to experience Bears Ears and the Lockhart Basin. I’ve studied the place from the air and from distant vantage points, but I had never been on the ground there. This was an easy decision.

I’d ridden bikes with the Patagonia crew before. It’s a different experience. Everyone, it seems, crosses between sports, so you may be following a Bikram Yoga instructor up a sandy climb, or the guy who gave you a fist bump for cleaning a dicey boulder drop could have recently returned from a first ascent in the Himalaya. I’ve listened to a lot of hubris about “living the adventure.” It turns out that those who actually do, are a humble group – and many of them can shred.

Patagonia’s Moab presentation was as chill as they come. We formed a rough circle, with the clothes and gear laying on the ground in the center, talked details for fifteen minutes and that was it. An hour later we were at the trailhead of Captain Ahab, where Patagonia’s climbing contingent were already dots on the rock, a few pitches up “the Tombstone” - the dominant wall across the road.

It was an off-day for me. Clear skies and cool October temperatures failed to breathe life into my legs, but suffering up some climbs was small price to pedal one perfect day in paradise aboard one of my favorite bikes (Pivot Switchblade, thank you Poison Spider). Buoyed by some of the best technical singletrack on the planet and surrounded by Patagonia’s high-spirited group, I enjoyed my best-ever, worst day on the bike.
Moab

Four Corners area San Juan Mountains

We caravaned fifty miles South, down Highway 191 to Montecello, where we bunked up at Four Corners School of Outdoor Education. Patagonia has been a staunch supporter of National Monuments in the Southwest, so we would spend the second half of our trip exploring Bears Ears National Moment - and
learn why it has fallen into the cross-hairs of this country’s current President. If you're curious, I’ve since done a fair bit of research on the subject and found this article to be the best assessment of the conflict as it stands.

Bears Ears Indian Creek

Again, the climbers were up and gone before we had our bikes loaded in the trucks. Bears Ears is too large to see in a month, much less in a day. We descended into the canyons to sample the North end of the Monument above the Indian Creek climbing zone, where the landscape abruptly opens wide with 40-mile vistas to the North and West.


bigquotesOur guide, Poison Spider mechanic Aaron Lindberg, said that the route used to be traveled by trucks hauling uranium during Moab’s mining boom.

It was an easy out and back - twenty miles of rolling dirt road that traversed along the base of towering rust-colored cliffs above Lockhart basin. Our guide, Poison Spider mechanic Aaron Lindberg, said that
Bears Ears
the route used to be traveled by trucks hauling uranium during Moab’s mining boom. Lindberg pointed to a thin green layer mid-way up the cliffs. “That’s where it all is. The dinosaurs are in that layer too.”

We ate lunch on a ledge of chocolate colored stone near the turnaround point, which offered me a chance to digest the rainbow of pastel-washed buttes that stretched to the horizon. Enfolded in the canyons below them are some of the desert’s most closely guarded secrets, and those of the Native Americans who once thrived here. On the trek back, I noticed a rock cairn marking a path that descended into a promising drainage. It had been a while since I felt this hungry to explore.

Over dinner the night before, Conservation Lands Foundation’s Charlotte Overby said to remember that Federal land belongs to us. When we discover a place like Bears Ears, when we make it into a National Monument, we’re saying, “Hey, this is an outstanding place. Let’s keep it the way it is for the next people who visit. We don’t add anything. We don’t take anything away. Ranchers can still ranch, existing mines, businesses and residents can still continue on. Monument status offers users more freedom than any other form of protection we have.”

I like that. Preservation is rarely spoken in the context of inclusiveness. A lot of people must agree. Reportedly, Bears Ears earned more support from US citizens and tribal nations than any National Monument since Teddy Roosevelt created the first in 1906. It was hard to imagine then, that only a month after my visit, our President would slice Bears Ears to pieces and feed them to the Governor of Utah.
Bears Ears

Dismantling Bears Ears, and nearby Escalante-Grand Staircase National Monuments was the result of a pissing match between past and present presidential administrations, and it was a trophy, ceremoniously delivered to the country's Western Sates, which contend that the Federal government should not own or control lands with their boundaries.

While that may look great on paper, the reality is that this country's leaders didn't figure out that setting aside large tracts of common land may have been a wise idea until the Western half was being occupied. Federally owned lands in western states are hugely disproportional to those in the East, but the benefits cannot be argued. The West has a proliferation of National Parks, unparalleled recreational freedom, and abundant habitat protections. Pull up Google maps and compare those opportunities in states east of the Mississippi, where, from their inception, almost every acre of land was parceled to private ownership and municipal governments.

Bears Ears National Monument - before
BLM map of the original Bears Ears National Monument boundary.

Every state has archaeological and natural wonders that exist nowhere else, and every state has been guilty of trashing one or more of them at some point - most often to exploit resources. Ironic then, that it was the States (Congress) that created the Antiquities Act, which Teddy Roosevelt then employed to proclaim the first National Monument as a means to federally protect ancient Native American dwellings from wholesale looting, because the State of Colorado did not.

Anasazi didn't erect their dwellings in the alcoves of North Carolina. There are no manatees swimming in Utah's Great Salt Lake. No redwood forests grow in Texas, and there is nothing like Bears Ears where I live in San Diego - which makes me glad that fifteen out of the sixteen presidents who have wielded the power of the Antiquities Act, did so as a quick and decisive method to place such treasures in trust for our entire nation. One president did not, and I'm certain that if Teddy Roosevelt were here to comment, he would call him a looter, not a leader.

Posted In:
Stories


Author Info:
RichardCunningham avatar

Member since Mar 23, 2011
974 articles

194 Comments
  • 112 13
 Thank-you for writing this Richard. Nearly everyone who has enjoyed outdoor recreation in the western US has done so on federal lands protected under the Antiquities Act. Without these lands, the west might be a very different place and our $700+ billion dollar recreation economy a lot smaller.
  • 104 61
 it's frustrating how many of the decisions of what happens to Utah's land is decided by people OUTSIDE of Utah. This has nothing to do with party politics, I vote republican on some issues and democrat on others. The Bears Ears was already federal, protected land before it was made a national monument. It was a HUGE land grab. Now, I'm not a huge proponent of drilling in this beautiful area, but Utah's residents were largely against this designation.

I believe Mr. Trump is reversing this because of complaints from Utah residents and their elected officials representing them.

It's frustrating living in Utah, having people visit from out of state, be impressed, then enact legislation that affects those of us who live here the most. We already have 5 national parks, too much tourism, and 70% of the state is federal land. The National Monument designation outlawed several of my favorite backcoutnmry 4x4 and bikepacking routes. Now, to people outside of the state who just want to hit a 2 day overview tour, they'll never feel these impacts, but us locals definitely feel it. Not only that, now the Bears Ears area is on everyone's radar and added to their "must see" list. Prior to the designation, the Bears Ears area was one of the least visited area of Utah, and it wasn't in danger. It was already federally protected land.

It's no surprise Patagonia's trip had a political slant to it. There was absolutely no reason to designate so much land to begin with in the first place. Yes, it's beautiful. Yes, I want to keep it pristine. No, it doesn't need to be a national monument to do so.
  • 70 72
 If you don't like living in a state that is 70% federal land I hear that there are 49 others you can choose from.
  • 44 12
 @bschleenbaker: I love living in a state with 70% federal land. What I don't love is that land receiving even more restrictions on it without the input from the people living there.
  • 88 16
 Ok, lots in there, so let’s unpack this one at a time:
1. Who Makes the Decision? – You say that all of this stuff is being decided by people outside of Utah. But where would you draw the line? You live in Lehi, but I live 40 miles from the Utah border in Mancos, CO. I’m far more likely to be personally affected by Bears Ears than you as its less than a 90 minute drive for me. Maybe I should have more of a voice than you. What about the tribes who actually live in San Juan County? They are more than 50% of the population of that county, but have only 1/3 political representation because of gerrymandering (they are suing over this). Finally, this is FEDERAL land. It is owned by ALL AMERICANS. Just because it happens to fall in the borders of a particular state shouldn’t mean it should be governed by that state.
2. Was it protected land before monument status? NO. It was general federal land only subject to general federal land statutes. It did not have any specific protections against sale, leasing, agriculture and natural resources extraction.
3. You lost some of your favorite 4X4 and bikepacking routes? Which ones?? You need to provide facts here. I’ve seen nothing in the monument designation or subsequent regulations closing any existing lawful 4x4 or bike trails in the monument.
4. Too much tourism? I understand the frustration, but pull your head out of the sand. The reason they are trying to reverse this isn’t to keep it pristine and hidden. Its to open it to natural resource extraction interests.
  • 47 7
 Yeah I was out in SLC for not long after Obama designated Bear's Ears a monument and it was interesting to hear locals' (sort of local) perspective on it. It's interesting that this article uses Mesa Verde as a similar example - Mesa Verde NP protects the archaeological sites, but it's literally 3% the size of the Bears Ears - 52k acres vs 1.35 million. If I was a local I think it'd be really hard to look at a 1.3 million acre designation and not think 'land grab', especially when the area already had some level of federal protection and was relatively unknown. Can't help but wonder if the designation had been less ambitious if it would've been less controversial.

But I do agree with you, I'm not convinced Trump was just trying to stick it to Obama in undoing the NM designation, there was legitimate anger from Utah's representative/citizens from my limited time talking to ppl about it. And using Mesa Verde as an example again, look what that place has become... it's extremely touristy and gets a lot of traffic, just like most national parks. I'm glad it was protected (it was literally being looted) and that my kids can see it, but it's similar to the Wilderness issue we always talk about with mtb - NM designation is a pretty heavy hammer to be swinging around when a lot of these areas appear to be under no imminent threat. But in the same way we want to protect the really incredible places, maybe we also need to keep some secret. Those who are motivated will discover and love it, those who want a whirlwind tour of highlights won't even know it's there.... and that's okay.

Idk, it's a tough one. Locals didn't want Yellowstone or the Tetons to be protected either at the time, and ultimately I think that's been a huge net positive for the nation (possibly the region too?). Maybe Bear's Ears could be that important too, not sure. But it's easy for Patagonia and others to show up and advocate for something when they don't have to live there. I've never been to Bear's Ears and I can't say what the right decision is, but I'm pretty confident it's not as black and white as Patagonia and others have made it.
  • 8 7
 Well said, couldn't agree more.
  • 26 4
 Giving up rights to public lands in Utah was a condition of statehood for the residents of Utah.

From the Enabling Act Section 3 Condition 2:

"That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States;"

Full document here: archives.utah.gov/community/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm
  • 17 2
 @bkm303: Really?? I live 2 miles from the Mesa Verde entrance and look at it every day from work and home. It is far from overcrowded--its among the lowest visitor statistics of any of the regional park units. The reason for its size is several fold: (1) It is bordered on the south and east by Ute Tribal lands (you can't take tribal land and make it a park); (2) Its bordered on north and northeast by private land, which has been in ranching since before the park was adopted (you can't take private lands and make them a park without compensating the owners); and (3) its bordered on the west by a mix of highways, the City of Cortez and the Navajo nation (again, nothing to make a park out of). Bears Ears by contrast is a broad mix of canyons and mesas which are (a) all federal lands; and (b) have quality cultural resources spread throughout. Your argument is like saying Grand Canyon National Park should be way smaller because of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. They are two totally different resources.
  • 28 26
 Me, as a Utahn, totally agree with what sixstringsteve said. I was doing a persuasive essay in school about government overreach in Utah. I had to research and cite my sources. Almost every news network that wanted more national parks/mounuments weren’t even from Utah.
Another thing. For this same essay I went down to this area (Monticello.) I conducted an interview and got the basic opinion of the locals. They didn’t want it. Not even the business wanted it. Every single business, except for one, had a #nomounument sticker on their windows. The author was definitely not very well informed. Though his article sounded good and all, it forgets the say of the locals. Those that live in Utah, and more specifically in South Eastern Utah.
I’m probably going to get slammed for this, but I think Trump did the right thing for those locals. And as a Utahan is pisses me off when people that don’t live in Utah tell me how my home state should be.
  • 20 4
 @gunnerMTB: Props to you for going to Monticello, but you realize you just went to one town in the county. Did you go to Blanding (same position as Monticello), or Bluff (totally opposite view on the momenment) or any of the rural areas of the county (you'll find a mix there). Over half of San Juan County is Native American and they were the ones that pushed hard for the monument.
  • 10 18
flag gunnerMTB (Dec 14, 2017 at 13:04) (Below Threshold)
 @katmai: actually Blanding thinks the same as Monticello. I know a lot of people down their. And actually the Native Americans pushing it aren’t even locals. The local Native Americans don’t want it. Trust me, I’ve got family down there with first hand experience.
  • 7 8
 @katmai: And the historical sites were already protected by laws, just sayin.
  • 3 3
 @katmai: according to the NPS site Mesa Verde has about 1/10th the visitors of Grand Canyon (middle of the pack in terms of NPs), but it's also only 1/20th the size. Seemed pretty packed last time I was there, but you definitely have better perspective on it than I do. National Parks are usually kind of loved to death, IMO. I love that they exist and that they're protected, but they're often not the sort of places you want to go for solitude and wilderness (at least not in the summer).

And yes, I understand that different places have different restrictions. My point is that 1.3M acres is a shitload of land. There's a very obvious reason for GCNP to be as large as it is - the Grand Canyon is a huge, distinct geographical feature. I understand that Bear's Ears had tons of cool/valuable landmarks and cultural sites dispersed throughout, but it's not as if it was about to be flooded/demolished before it was designated a Natl Monument, and Utah is full of mesas and canyons. Why not just protect the most significant archaeological sites?
  • 7 1
 @gunnerMTB: I mentioned that Blanding has the same position as Monticello. But you didn't mention Bluff. My concern was that you were presenting one side of an argument. There are two and two very vocal ones which extend locally, regionally, statewide, and nationally. I think if we start trying parse down who should make the decision by anything other than who actually manages the land, we can easily descend into our own tribal camps that support our position. I fully recognize that many in the region do not want the monument, but I get tired of people commenting that everyone doesn't want it because there are a lot of them that do.
  • 11 6
 @sixstringsteve You say you have "too much tourism". A couple thoughts. 1) your economy depends on it (as does everybody's to some extent), so stop looking down your nose at it. We all need tourists no matter where we live. 2) sorry for the impact on existing trails, but those of us living in the East Coast megalopolis can't understand how you don't have enough space. Utah has, what, 3M people? The DC metro area has over 6M in a space 1/15th the size of your state. If you're going to complain about being crowded or a lack of space, it doesn't resonate with much of the country.

Finally, regarding having "outsiders" impact your local area, I don't want to hear shit about it until DC has full representation in congress and complete home rule.

I don't say this to dismiss your concerns or defend the monument designation, but it's worth understanding why these "outsiders" don't show sympathy for setting aside land out west.
  • 6 6
 @katmai: notice I didn’t say everyone down there opposed it. The majority oppose it. The majority of Utahans oppose more government land
  • 6 0
 @gunnerMTB: Those laws only protect the individual sites themselves, not the broader context of where they sit. No federal law prevents installing a mine, oil rig, diversion canal, hotel, road etc right next to a historic site. The monument protects the context in which they sit. Case in point, one of the very largest puebloan sites happens to be in downdown Aztec, New Mexico. Its protected as part of a historic park, but other than the remains of the buildings you can't see the site in context at all. Instead you see modern urban development. The monument protects both the sites and the context in which they sit. That is important to many of us that want to see them that way and leave them that way for future generations. Again, I fully understand that there is a different view out there. But, I reject any argument that the locals or Utahans don't want the monument. Many don't, but many do as well.
  • 12 15
 @katmai: most people from Utah on this comment section don’t support more parks/monuments. Those defending parks/mounuments aren’t from Utah. I know you guys are entitled to your opinions, but those of us that actually live in Utah don’t want more government regulations.
  • 4 3
 @sixstringsteve right on and lucid points.
  • 7 4
 @katmai: True. So why weren’t there that many mines before Obama declared it a mounument? According to the state their is no oil on the land. And if you were caught up on economics no sane person would start a mine in that area right now.
  • 6 1
 @gunnerMTB: Under current law, in order to have almost any private natural resource extraction on federal lands, the feds actually have to offer it for lease/sale for that kind of operation. That had not previously been undertaken by the feds, hence no risk of that kind of activity. But there was also nothing in law to prevent that from happening should a future administration decide to proceed that route. The monument makes that protection longer term.
  • 15 7
 I totally agree with you and feel for you. You live in extraordinary beautiful and absolutely unique state.
Its totally unfair the federal government from out of state tries to keep people from f**king it up, spilling oil all over the place, and polluting it with even more radioactive waste from uranium mining!

I am Californian and we have a long history (as longa s history can be on the west coast of teh US) of great oils spills, man made droughts, empty lakes and rivers, and overpopulation.
I totally understand that you want for your state too!
  • 6 18
flag chasejj (Dec 14, 2017 at 14:15) (Below Threshold)
 @michibretz: Full of crap drama queen. How did the CNN interview go?
  • 9 0
 @gunnerMTB: "The Native Americans pushing it aren't even locals"? What?! Name one Native tribe that opposes the monument. Blanding, UT is home to the FBIs greatest seizure of stolen Native artifacts, around 40,000 pieces, and that's the kind of crap that the Ute, Navajo, and Hopi tribes have all formally stood against by requesting increased protection for this land 7 years ago.
  • 15 7
 "No Utah locals support the monument designation" = "No one in my 4 wheeler group or ward supports the monument designation"

I guess government overreach is only acceptable when it's fueled by xenophobia. The real locals (the ones who live there and who's families have lived there for more than 200 years) overwhelmingly support this.
  • 10 1
 @thedeathstar: "No Utah locals support the monument designation" = "No one in my 4 wheeler group or ward supports the monument designation".

That's funny. Thanks for that.
  • 15 1
 @sixstringsteve as someone who has spent an unhealthy amount of time in Grand Gulch, Cedar Mesa, Elk Ridge, Beef Basin, etc, I'm curious what routes were closed? To my knowledge, nothing really changed other than a new spot on the map and the fact we would never have to fight the mining, logging, and oil industry inside that zone.

I was there recently and the funniest thing was talking to the volunteers at Kane Gulch saying they get asked 'Where can I see the Bears Ears' with them easily in sight from the highway right there.

Missing from the conversation are the Hopi, Navajo, Ute, and the many other tribes who literally have ancestors buried throughout each canyon and have ceremonial sites still preserved in hidden canyons.

What's also dumbfounding is how Arches, Canyonlands, and views of Escalante and Zion are plastered in airports around the world, yet all of these were fought at one point too. So which is it? Iconic, worth protecting? Or simply just a marketing scheme and you'll destroy it when you see fit?
  • 9 12
 @katmai: god, i hate that phrase "Lets unpack this" THERES NOTHING TO UNPACK. Its a conversation with information in it! There was no packing done so,there is nothing to f**ing unpack!
Nothing personal, Ive never had the forum to properly unpack my undying fury with that pompous, stupid phrase. Thanks ,...again, Nothing personal.
  • 8 2
 @gunnerMTB: I live in Kanab and am all for the monuments. Many people are.
  • 5 5
 @thedeathstar: No actually. I have talked to a lot of locals. And tons of them have a #nomounument sticker in thier houses, buisnesses, or cars. So not just me or my friends. The majority.
  • 11 3
 Yes. Trump is a right c*nt.
Now that should get @chasejj and @therealtylerdurden oiling ip their ar15s
Bwahahahaa
  • 3 5
 @CRAFTY-P: Haha. Surely a wanker from my favorite foreign country can do better than that.
  • 6 3
 Too much tourism? Tourism is what keeps Utah from being even more of a tax thief than it already is.
  • 2 0
 Well stated 6 String. "Walk (ride) a mile in my shoes", puts this issue in the proper context. I want to live free. Period.
  • 4 0
 100% right, huge overreach.
  • 3 8
flag gunnerMTB (Dec 15, 2017 at 8:08) (Below Threshold)
 Well I was right in my first comment. I was slammed for this. And most of the people slamming my opinion aren’t even from Utah. Just goes to show that a whole bunch of people not from Utah want to tell us how we should live. Pisses me off
  • 6 2
 @gunnerMTB: It's not your land. It's OUR land. Just because I'm not from Utah doesn't mean I shouldn't have a voice in determining the fate of land that belongs to every citizen in the United States.
  • 5 6
 @LeDuke: how would you like it if the government came and said that you couldn’t hunt, graze, mountain bike, or drive on the land that you family has done things on for generations. I know your opinion matters. But I think that the people that are actually affected should have more say then the majority of millennial sitting in parents basements playing video games. It doesn’t affect them but it affects those of us in Utah. And it affects those that have to reli on the land.
  • 6 5
 @gunnerMTB: You sound really open minded, so point to me exactly where the grazing, access and hunting rights were limited in the proclamation? Likewise, again, Mormons ignoring anything that happened prior to their blessed arrival. I'm sure the Natives would love to take their land back to how 'done things for generations' too, you know.

Gotta love sweeping generalizations.
  • 6 3
 @Klainmeister: As I’ve said before, the local Native Americans don’t want a national monument.
When Bill Clinton designated Grade Staircase he said that Native Americans could still hunt, and graze livestock like they’d done for hundreds of years. So much for that promise. And yeah I am open minded. For a while I even thought like a lefty. Then I grew up and started listening to reason. I’ll stll listen to you guys. But in the end I need to choose out of the very ill informed people online or simple logic. I chose simple logic.
  • 4 1
 @gunnerMTB: You guys? You know my political affiliation? Hint: it's not lefty.

And I'm happy you speak on behalf of all the Native Americans.
  • 2 1
 @Klainmeister: well yo sort of sound like one. And I’m only speaking on behalf of the local Native Americans.
  • 5 2
 @gunnerMTB: No, i'm just an outdoorsman who fishes, bikes, hunts, etc. I love wild places and nothing ruins them more than a bunch of selfish individuals who think it belongs to 'them' only. Those that litter, start forest fires, leave atv tracks everywhere, rob grave sites for the local black market, and better yet, the companies that leave their mess behind for future generations to clean up like the uranium messes in Moab, near Lake Powell and across the Navajo Nation. Those cost the taxpayers millions to clean up and people have real health concerns, but it's fine, a handful of politicians and CEOs get the benefit at the expense of the general public.

Just at an anecdotal level, look at Island in the Sky, there's two BLM campsites that are actually difficult to sleep at now because you hear a constant droning of the oil pumps they installed 3 years ago. when's enough enough?

I wish everything was so black and white that generalizations on 'all the locals i talked to' and 'all the natives i talk to' allow me to write it off. But it's not. And at the end of this there's this fear mongering by both sides that just plain innaccurate. I'm still waiting to hear exactly what was closed off at Bears Ears? Shit, at Escalante, a local politicain is already talking about paving the 4x4 route to Hole in Rock and making it a State Park. I'm sure you're 4x4 buddies love that idea too, right?
  • 4 4
 @Klainmeister: notice I never generalized. I just said the majority. Man I was right about being slammed for my opinions.
Listen buddy, the land was already protected under laws to not disturb archeological sites. Their were no Uranium mines there in the first place, so why would that change now? Nothing ruins wild places then having flocks of tourists and litter from them. I went down there many time before. We had so much fun being all alone and having no tourists like in Moab. Well so much for that. As I said again, I think that the locals voice should matter more then your’s. Just saying.
And by the way, I don’t go four wheeling that often, and neither do my friends. Stop generalizing. Wink
  • 1 0
 @gunnerMTB: There's plenty of uranium sites in there, hence EFR imploring local legislature to stop the monument.

I'm with you, I wish this whole damn mess never happened to begin with. Just the changes in visitation this last year was horrendous and the never-ending social media postings of sensitive sites. No win scenario, it feels like.
  • 1 0
 @gunnerMTB: Thats an interesting point for sure. Good to hear some local points of view. But just for the sake of argument though, what is your stance on this. To be a "local" technically just requires someone moving to the area. Does being a local resident really give you full say on how land is preserved? It obvisouly an area that is important to people nationwide for a variety of reasons. If everyone in my neighborhood got together and decided to turn the local fishing pond into a sewage waste site, Id probably be happy that a federal entitiy took charge and preserved it for the greater good. Im not arguing that is what is happening in this case, but i guess it all depends on where you fall as far as local gov vs. federal gov decisions. I for one cant complain about the large amounts of federal and state lands where i live that allow me to get out and explore constantly.
  • 6 1
 A land grab is when private interests and profit win out over the public good. It belongs to ALL of us, not just the people who live there. That’s what it means to be a nation.
  • 3 2
 @rwilbur: good point. I'm moving in with you!
  • 2 1
 @gunnerMTB: As mentioned before I don't think there is one Native American tribe you can name who opposes Bears Ears National Monument. And yes, it's illegal to steal artifacts from any federal land, but have you EVER seen a federal agent on BLM land? They're scarce enough on National Monument land. I am continually dumbfounded at the arguments presented in favor of shrinking the monument because they essentially boil down to a few main points: #1 screw what the Native American tribes want I was here second and #2 I like having this land to myself to do what ever I want (camp, 4 wheel, hike, shoot guns, mine for uranium).
  • 2 3
 @bschleenbaker: A. I've met a few of them. B. Quit your bitching. It's annoying af.
  • 3 4
 I'm going to laugh my ass off when a bunch of trails in Moab are closed off for a uranium or oil operation.
  • 2 1
 @therealtylerdurden: You’ve met a few tribes?
  • 5 0
 @bschleenbaker: dude, it is a way bigger deal than just moving out of the state. People in Utah love the out doors, it's why a lot of us are here, and we want the land protected and preserved. How ever, we also want to be able to use the land. A national monument is practically unusable when it comes to recreation. Compound that with how restrictive the access in national parks is and it makes these huge amazing areas into glorified tourist traps. We want to protect the land and preserve the native American heritage sights, we just don't want the federal government to do it for us.
  • 4 2
 If it was already Federal land which you think should be kept pristine, that pretty much contradicts your assertion of a problematic land grab. Federal lands in general are not protected, but ate OPEN to mining, oil and gas development, pipelines and electric transmission lines being constructed. Only special protections can stop those kinds of development on Federal lands.
  • 7 0
 Just to be clear here, the majority of uses that were allowed prior to monument designation will still be allowed. For example, motorized vehicles including ATVs and motorcycles have access to all of the 1800 miles of roads and trails that were open prior to designation. Hunting, fishing, grazing, and timber extraction are grandfathered in. This is really about guarding against future mineral extraction. Here's a good facts sheet: www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/BearsEars-VisitorInformationFactSheet.pdf
  • 5 1
 @half-man-half-scab: Hey man, don't let your facts get in the way of a good, uninformed argument.
  • 2 2
 @bschleenbaker: a few federal agents, dumbass.
  • 2 2
 @therealtylerdurden: when you "met" the Feds, bruv, did the conversation start:
Put your hands behind your f*cking head!!!!!
Ah hah ha ha.
  • 3 3
 @gunnerMTB: Funny how "locals" generally only means "white folks." The Navajo, who alone make up half the county's population and who are overwhelmingly in support of the monument (they were the most recent inhabitants, so many of the archaeological sites are theirs) never get to count as "local." Or us guys in Salt Lake who want to spend money in these communities that evidently don't want it to recreate in lands where the uranium mines are all past tense (mostly - there are a sh!tload down there). Utahns wanted this monument, just not the ones that Trump or Zinke wanted to talk to.
  • 4 1
 @gunnerMTB "True. So why weren’t there that many mines before Obama declared it a mounument? According to the state their is no oil on the land. And if you were caught up on economics no sane person would start a mine in that area right now."

Uranium, and there are lots of mines down there. I had a customer come in who works for the Department of Energy and who was conducting an inventory of closed uranium mines within the original monument boundaries. She said that she had found 150 on her own, mostly completely unmitigated. The companies find it cheaper to declare bankruptcy than to clean up. Moab has some experience with this in the form of the UMTRA site on the way into town. The mining companies often leave piles of radioactive garbage (tailings piles) essentially open to the elements to find their way into the air, the water, the animals, what have you.

Between protecting indigenous cultural artifacts (from those very folks in Blanding you talked to) and opening more uranium mines, I'd rather have somewhere that hasn't been irradiated to bike, thanks.

"most people from Utah on this comment section don’t support more parks/monuments. Those defending parks/mounuments aren’t from Utah. I know you guys are entitled to your opinions, but those of us that actually live in Utah don’t want more government regulations."

As a Utahn, you don't speak for me, but thanks for the concern.
  • 1 2
 @CRAFTY-P: most of us think trumps a c**t too ! Lol
  • 2 1
 @CRAFTY-P: as a matter of fact, no.

@Matt115lamb: what a fitting user name! f*cking sheep.
  • 1 0
 @therealtylerdurden: that’s it the spud gun is coming out of retirement !
  • 5 2
 @gunnerMTB: @gunnerMTB: I'm from utah and you can get f*cked mate. I support the national monument. the only govt overreach in utah was done a long time ago by the state goverment when they set up all the stupid ass alcohol laws.
  • 2 5
 @wiscobiker: so much vitriol! You still mad Hillary lost? lol
  • 4 2
 @therealtylerdurden: still mad? Hillary and trump were both terrible candidates so i voted libertarian. Was i surprised trump won? Yes, but not really mad. But every time trump does more dumb shit i do feel more disapointed in all the incompetent masses that actually would vote for such an egotistical jackass.
  • 2 8
flag chasejj (Dec 19, 2017 at 11:00) (Below Threshold)
 @wiscobiker: As if all the others weren't egotistical jackasses, particularly the last one. Just doing it in different ways. Kinda goes with the job.
Everybody I know loves the Trumpster, lots of them are very highly educated and not by any definition incompetent masses.
Your elitist perception are why he won. Thank GOD. The winning doesn't get old.

MAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 43 11
 Welcome to Utah. Where we plaster beautiful pictures of the red rock desert all over the airport, billboards, and TV ads but also do everything in our power to sell those lands off for ranching and mineral prospecting.
  • 2 0
 @hevi: God help me, the question of what Trump would want with more uranium keeps me up at night. "A Canticle for Leibowitz" is an awesome book about nuclear war if you ever get the chance. And it's set in Utah, so bonus!
  • 22 2
 This isn't the place (nor am I equipped) to attempt a comprehensive review of the issue at hand, but everyone should know that this article is very much an opinion piece and the factors surrounding Bear's Ears and Escalante are incredibly complicated with lots of valid arguments on both sides. If that linked NPR article is RC's best summary, he needs to do a bunch more homework. That only spells out the (il)legality of Trump's reversal. I don't think recreation, specifically MTB, has a clear friend in this fight. “Hey, this is an outstanding place. Let’s keep it the way it is for the next people who visit. We don’t add anything. We don’t take anything away. Ranchers can still ranch, existing mines, businesses and residents can still continue on. Monument status offers users more freedom than any other form of protection we have.” That's a great soundbite, but it's not that simple. I think it would help if people on both sides started seeing our relationship with land as a stewardship, rather than an inalienable human right (on one side) or that humans are alien invaders (on the other side). One thing is for sure, I love Utah and I hope we can compromise on ways to preserve, enjoy, and benefit from the land so that my kids can see and experience what I have.
  • 7 0
 I thought it was about happy ending, I’ve never had a ride end with a happy end because my wife is too tired, but I’ve been lucky enough to think about it a few times during a ride
  • 18 3
 @gunnerMTB: Its part of being a nation, (which has to have it's capital somewhere, if it was in Utah than every federal law would be made by those "outside" to the residents of the other 49 states).
And tired of the notion that "regulations" are evil.
Have you ever lived outside of the US? Ever lived in a country with no regulations? I have. Its not that great. Strip and acid mining anywhere, garbage dumping anywhere, deforestation everywhere, etc.
The land doesnt belong to Utah residents, thats not how it works.
And go ahead and turn down your nose at tourism, but last time I checked it was a major part of your economy, whether you are involved in it directly or not. Utah doesnt produce much else.
We in Colorado were more than happy to take the Outdoor Retailer show, and its multimillion dollar impact, off your hands. Expect more companies and tourists and yes, bikers, to vote with their wallets and not support a state so anti-environment.
But more than anything else, I just dont understand people who think we have too much wilderness and solitude. Bro have you taken a look around lately?
  • 14 1
 Also, hilarious how in the "anti-regulations" state you practically cant get a beer or marg without a background check. Meanwhile in Colorado, ...... mmmmmmm Smile
  • 14 1
 @KBperu: Utah is full of the worst kind of hypocrites. Want to tell you how to live your life and legislate what people do in their own bedrooms and bodies yet complain about "overreach of the federal government."
  • 23 12
 Usually I try to come up with a reasoned comment to this subject in spite of how angry it makes me. But in this instance I simply can’t. I will say great job to both Richard and Vernon for reporting on this issue in turn. We simply must must must protect our commonly held Federal land. Regardless of whether or not you can ride a bike on it. That’s a seperate issue. One that needs to be addressed for sure. One that we don’t have too much of a voice in. Which obviously gets us riled up. All this bit about “local control” is rubbish. Industry and big money is lobbying the federal govt. hard for “local control”. That’s because local govt. is far easier to manipulate. Localities always always always side with the developer. That’s why I have a loading dock of a major grocery store not even 60’ from the edge of my property in what used to be a quiet suburban neighborhood. Now I’ve got tractor trailers rumbling through my backyard all day long. Town meetings, protests etc. did nothing. Big money waves it’s checkbook and local officials cave very quickly. That’s the result of local control. I’m not so naive to think that doesn’t go on with the Feds. Of course it does. There’s plenty of oil drilling on public lands. But there is no development allowed on protected federal lands. Now I ask you one and all: Does anyone here want to be riding through clearcuts, and oil fields? Cos if you do then we should get The likes of Hughes, Trumpmore, and Krabbe out to photog some great riders shredding the oil and gas rig fields. Lots of POD potential there. Remember there is only one party that chanted “Drill baby drill!!” That’s what this is all about. Nothing more nothing less. The rape of our publicly protected lands for the sole benefit and profit of investors and board room members so they can pad their already plush portfolios. Of course they’ll toss a few crumbs to the “locals” in the form of short term employment. Then they’ll pack up and move out continuing to collect the interest once the resources are gone. So sad.
  • 3 1
 I have ridden lots of hours in logged over lands and second growth forests, some of which are owned by private timber companies and some of which were public lands. It is impossible to ride in old growth coastal Douglas Fir forests. The under growth is just too thick. It is difficult to hike through those forests too.

And how do you propose to get to your riding area and what are you going to ride without mines and oil extraction?
  • 2 2
 @Dangerous-Dan: How dare you speak about reality and use logic. You must be some sort of racist or white supremacist who worships the KKK. (sarc).
The government bureaucracy is our friend. They have no reason to do anything that doesn't benefit us. (extreme sarc)
  • 2 0
 @chasejj:
Dang! You found me out... But what will happen to me if the KKK discovers I go to synagogue on Shabbes?

The obvious answer is that resource utilization needs to be done in a way that limits the impact on the area being developed. Roads can be built to minimize erosion. Waste products need to be minimized and managed.

Too many people buy into the "ecofascist" agenda or the NIMBY attitude. I have seen it happen more times than you would care to imagine. People move to an area where farming or logging or mining or what ever is the prime economic engine. Then, they demand that it be stopped because it is noisy or dirty or it is frightening the Pileated Woodpeckers. SIGH!!!
  • 14 0
 A good read and excellent comments on both sides. I need to educate myself more before I take a side.
  • 5 0
 That is the best comment ever on pinkbike
  • 15 1
 People got what they voted for.
  • 13 1
 Utah is such an incredibly beautiful place.
  • 10 0
 A question for the Utah locals:
Where do you think the companies that will make the profit from this are from? All local businesses?
  • 1 0
 Depends on whether you consider our congressional delegation a business.
  • 10 3
 Oh, the majority of Utahns oppose Bear’s Ears? Cool. There’s one vote out of 50. It’s FEDERAL LAND. It’s just as much mine as theirs. All of the arguments against Bear’s Ears insist everything will stay the same after the rescinding of the NM status. They just don’t want the Federal government controlling the Federal government’s land because hey live near it. I don’t get a say in what my neighbor does on her land. That’s how property works.
  • 5 7
 How about you read the Constitution bud, the feds overstep their authority all the time, especially when it comes to land.
  • 4 0
 @nohit45: Because I'm lazy (no other reason, I swear), please show everyone what part of the constitution this is overstepping.
  • 17 7
 great write up, I can't believe in this day and age and how far we've come that we are running backwards......
  • 18 10
 Trump and Zinke are pair of absolute shit heads. Leave the Grand Staircase and the Bears Ears alone. You are only going to get one shot at it if you screw them up. Bravo for Patagonia, I am customer for life.
  • 11 5
 What would Hayduke do?

In all honesty, to the "cut the politics talk" people - it's time to grow up and realize that civil discourse about thing that impact our passion of BIKES (F-YEA!) and outdoors is a good thing!

So, COME CORRECT with some facts to back up your BS, not some robot sheeple talking point you were fed by Bannon, Fox, truthout or MSNBC. Do some research for yourself, maybe using sources that might put you a bit outside your comfort level. Learn to see thru the politics and recognize that this shit is important and impacts what you love to do.
  • 2 3
 I guess you get your REAL news from CNN, MSN, Washington Post? Luckily youre well informed
  • 1 1
 @owlie: "Thanks for the politcal plug Richard. I dont get enough shitty politics on the internet."

Thank you for turning it back to mountain biking. Public lands is not a pertinent mountain biking issue, but news sources definitely is.
  • 5 1
 I love how this guy has made one trip to this place and he thinks he understands the issue that bears ears faces. Im from canada and if i made one trip to america and called it stupid in my opinion you'd all call me on my dumb shit and you'd be right. Dont write and publish about shit you dont know about
  • 11 6
 Either way you split it, nobody wins with federalization. I do agree that we are in the center of a "pissing match", but perhaps it will clean up some of the "shit storm" IMBA put us into.
  • 12 2
 It was already federal land before it was a NM anyway.
  • 11 3
 Enjoyed reading this. Cheers
  • 5 1
 Trump views the world through the eyes on a real estate developer, he sees the world as an development opportunity. How many hours do you think he’s spent exploring National Parks and Wilderness areas. I bet zero.
  • 5 2
 I used to live in, and still own a house and some land in, a small town in Oregon that the Feds tried to designate as a "Wild and Scenic River". That designation would have resulted in a level of regulation that would have amounted to confiscation of our homes, with not a penny offered in compensation. Never mind the destruction of the community.

Fortunately, it was a well organized community with several politically savvy residents, and the protests raised were able to prevent this designation.

The author seems to think that development and recreation and scenic beauty are not compatible, while noting that he drove out on roads built to support mining activity. And he doesn't even seem to see the irony in what he wrote.

If you want to see what the protectionist mind set yields, look at what is happening in Portland Oregon today with Forest Park. Richard, you are incredibly naive if you think the government is your friend.
  • 10 8
 Came expecting something about how a ride starts off great and then ends in adversity where you had to struggle back to the trailhead only to realize the struggle was part of what made it great...wtf man. Can we not escape all this sh*t on PB at least?
  • 3 2
 nope, gotta have it shoved in your face everywhere. just go outside, its better out there i promise
  • 3 1
 @laxguy: Agreed 100%. Its Friday and Im itching. Supposed to be a good one this weekend in Pisgah. Cheers my friend!
  • 2 1
 @NebulousNate: Little chilly up in VT but that just means I'll be sliding instead of pedaling! Cheers mate
  • 11 9
 Can we please stop politicizing a tract of land the never received any attention prior to the Obama land grab and now that Trump released it. NOBODY is out there, ever. This article represents Richard's first, and probably only, excursion into a very desolate location in southern Utah. Wanna bitch?? Look what has happened to the federally protected land at Zion National Park. 5 million visitors a year and have turned what was once a pristine place into a freaking circus. I don't see anyone bitching about that. Bears Ears wasn't known to a single one of you until two polarizing administrations have made it an issue, now you all want to jump on a bandwagon and act like land saviors.
And for those pissed that the state of Utah might sell it to ranchers or miners, where the hell do you think all your shit comes from?? Thin air?? Every single material found on our bikes was mined, and all the food that magically appears in your Whole Foods, was grown. You wanna get all preachy without any education on the subject or ever having visited the land, grow your own food and quit buying things that come from mined materials...good luck.
  • 5 3
 Does the amount of people who knew about it before being designated as a monument have anything to do with whether or not it should be a monument?

Are you seriously trying to use Zion as an example? Please tell us what things were like there before it became a monument.
  • 2 0
 @ Nohit45-Well done , Sir.
  • 4 8
flag The-EndUser (Dec 15, 2017 at 14:37) (Below Threshold)
 Just opened Pink Bike for the first time in a week and I’m late to this party, but I want to say thank you for your most excellent comment. I live in Alaska, and like Utah, we have an overbearing federal footprint as well. When it comes to these far flung, remote areas of the USA, the belief of manifest destiny is alive and well. Sadly, from the comments here, most of you have no idea what this means. There is nothing more American (and difficult) than cultivating an existence on the peripheries of civilization. I digress, but federalization and modern politicization has been a blight upon our communities in Alaska and intentionally threatens decades of progress and modernization. I hope the President draws his attention to Alaska next…
What President Trump has done in Utah should be commended by every rational free-thinking American. While I don’t have any fundamental issue with the Federal Antiquities Act, it was clearly abused in this case. Its use under President Obama is tantamount to neo-colonialism and that’s deeply anti-American if not deeply concerning. Policies of an autocratic centralized government seeking to extend its authority over other people or territories in direct conflict of those living in there should be fought vigorously and without end. The intent of the law is “the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest” and the aim is to “protect all historic and prehistoric sites on United States federal lands and to prohibit excavation or destruction of these antiquities.” That is not what happened in Bears Ears and the Escalante-Grand Staircase and to think otherwise is daft. This was an immoral land grab by unilateral presidential decree pure and simple. This is still federal land, right? So let the locals of Southeastern Utah lobby the Feds and let them decide what they want done with the land….. and tourist be damned.
  • 13 12
 This is a great article, thanks RC. I've followed the Bears Ears saga and the general environmental assault of the current administration with intense interest and dismay. Whether or not you support the antiquities act or not, or federal land/water/air management or not, I'm not sure how you 1) deny that our land use in this country has been excessive and haphazard at best or 2) are against preserving vast tracts of land, considering how few of them remain and how much land we've already allocated to industry. If you've flown across the country at any point in the last 100 years, then you've seen that there is not one shred of un-farmed land left in the mideast/west, and that you will be hard-pressed in the west to find a view out the window that doesn't include at least a maze of roads and cell towers. It's damn hard to find peace of mind in this country as a result.
  • 7 4
 "hard-pressed in the west to find a view out the window that doesn't include at least a maze of roads and cell towers. It's damn hard to find peace of mind in this country as a result."

What?? Have you flown over the Rockies? The Cascades? The vast expanses of empty desert in the southwest? Even in the metro Denver area it's not hard to find some solitude for a weekend - drive a couple hours, hike a little ways, and you can avoid seeing people/roads/etc for days at a time. I've never driven through Wyoming or Montana and thought "man, this place is packed".
  • 9 3
 @bkm303: Actually, the most remote spot in the lower 48 is less than 20 miles to a road--less than a days walk for a fit person. That's in a land area of 3.2 million square miles. Sure it can feel remote, but its pretty packed with development.
  • 4 5
 @katmai: yeah... 20 miles as the crow flies, over rugged mountain terrain, with thousands of square miles between roads. I don't consider 40 miles between the two nearest roads to be "a maze of roads".

Not to mention, once you set foot of a well-defined trail (actual wilderness), 20 miles becomes WAY longer. I've been on bushwacks where we were working our asses off going maybe 1/2 mile per hour.
  • 4 2
 @bkm303: Yeah I've flown over them. Have made a couple trips recently, and it just caught my eye how rare it was to see even a relatively large area without development. The point is not there isn't still land out there, it's that there really isn't as much as we think and it's crazy to underestimate how quickly we can completely inhabit and develop land. It happens fast. I grew up in a rural area that got completely developed over the course of my childhood. Different people have different standards for access. Driving a couple hours + hiking isn't easy access to me.
  • 5 3
 @gemma8788: "Driving a couple hours + hiking isn't easy access to me."

Unless you're the self-reliant survivalist type, "easy access" is antithetical to wilderness. It's nonsensical to think that I/you could live anywhere near a major population center and NOT have to drive an hour or two to wilderness. Without that network of roads you see from the plane, we'd never even be able to see or experience most of the spectacular landscapes we have. If you're not willing to drive a couple hours and hike, you're damn sure not about to hoof it dozens of miles into wild country to find some peak/canyon/lake/butte/etc. You can keep it pristine or you can experience it, but almost never both. Conservation has always been this kind of balancing act.

All you have to do to find wilderness and solitude is drive/hike a little farther than the next guy. If you live virtually anywhere in the west you live near enough good hiking/biking/fishing/hunting/etc to keep you busy your whole life, as long as you're motivated. I just moved back home to CO from the northeast, where it's actually crowded. In terms of wild country we don't have much to complain about.
  • 1 0
 @bkm303: I do have to say I don't think he means he wont be going, I'm sure he wouldn't mind taking the time to get there. All he is saying is that to the majority a long drive and a hike is not that easy of access. luckily where i live in New Zealand we only have to drive maybe 30 minutes max to get to some native trails or national park. I see it as easy access but to the rest of the population it may not be. but i also like where you are coming from that everyone has the access available and that it isnt that "hard" to get to.
  • 3 1
 @George-k: yeah, I'm just saying if you live in/near a city and you have "easy access" to wilderness, it stops looking like wilderness pretty quick. Take away a lot of those access roads we're talking about and suddenly you get even more people crowded onto even less land.

There are def parts of the US where truly wild country is easily accessed (30min), but they're nowhere near big cities.
  • 2 0
 @bkm303: Well, my personal experience is different. I've walked 700 miles across the Brooks Range, averaging over 15 miles a day with no trails. 20 miles would have been a relatively easy goal for a particular day if we needed to cover that far. I can't think of a spot in the lower 48 that I couldn't get to within a days walk.
  • 1 0
 @katmai: "I can't think of a spot in the lower 48 that I couldn't get to within a days walk"

That's a bold statement.... I definitely believe that you can walk 15-20 miles per day in alpine terrain. That's not even remotely the same thing as covering 20 linear miles in the same time. Obviously you're an experienced hiker/navigator, but unless you're just straightlining up/down every single ridge that 20 miles turns into ~30 miles pretty quick when you're following the contours of the land, avoiding slow/dangerous terrain, etc. In heavily wooded terrain, I've taken half a day to make it just a few miles. Worse if there's snow.

And even if you're a god-level hiker who CAN get anywhere in the lower 48 in a day.... is that bad? Is the land less wild because there's a road a day's walk away? Is it crowded? Is there not more terrain there than you could possibly explore in a lifetime?
  • 6 4
 If you think Utah residents will have a piece of these lands, good luck! It’s gonna be a land grab by Foreign entities, Trumps friends from China and Russia! Lol all the way!
  • 1 1
 MORE PICS OF THAT HOT GUIDE AARON "teddy bear" LINDBERG
nice post Richard. Thanks for doing the piece and exposing the dismantling of public lands. Ted Cruz has led the conservative charge of writing legislation to start selling off western land; making Trump seem like a moderate conservationist in at least keeping the bears ears within the BLMs control. That is their thinking - private ownership and the state has no business owning any commons. I bet most readers here on pinkbike ride their bikes on some sort of public land, which the very idea of is being disputed by right wing circles.
  • 12 7
 thanks RC.
  • 3 0
 Mountain Biking in Wilderness Areas Closer to Reality: USA House Committee Passes Bill
  • 12 8
 It's a sad day.
  • 13 12
 Richard, thank you so much for writing on this topic. Also, big ups to Patagonia for putting their money where their mouth is.
  • 7 4
 Great article. Would read again.
  • 36 37
 So RC sells out for some free granola and maybe a massage on a political lobbying trip. Nice.
What he fails to mention is that Bears Ears was enacted as Obama was running out the door as a vindictive strike against his political foes in Utah. Not because it was the right thing to do.
The fact is Utah already has way too much land under Fed control and the designation basically wiped out Utah residents from making a living in the area swallowed up by the NM designation. The artifacts will be protected and the boundaries revised and reestablished once input from the native Americans who want to co-manage the area and Utah residents is heard and balanced.
Unbelievable how a bunch of California residents and others from other states will demand the shutting down vast tracts of lands that they will never see or only go to when they want to make a political point.
Liberalism/Socialism is a disease that tramples freedom everywhere it touches.
Patagonia is playing games courting MTB opinion shapers, vulnerable and wanting to join their anti-access club. RC is a stooge being used by these folks and will be discarded once they have to take a stand to allow MTB access to areas currently shut down.
  • 16 17
 This. So. F*cking. Much. This.
  • 15 24
flag pinhead907 (Dec 14, 2017 at 12:19) (Below Threshold)
 "Liberalism/Socialism is a disease that tramples freedom everywhere it touches." .... don't forget, #sandyHoax bro. I think Alex Jones probably has some awesome tire sealant for sale.
  • 4 6
 Says the guy from California.
  • 8 7
 @pinhead907: That's pretty low. The comment doesn't mention Sandy Hook, yet you try and associate chase with those who deny the shooting there.
  • 4 7
 @chasejj you speak truth, my friend!
  • 5 5
 @katmai: So what. I love Utah and if I didn't have kids in school here. I would possibly move. I just care about freedom and the abuses that the Feds and State of Cali level on recreational users for political reasons. Cali is so f*cked, I gave up years ago.
  • 4 3
 Gotta disagree on some points here. It's a really common misconception that the antiquities act prevents land uses such as mining, drilling, farming, hunting, etc. It doesn't. It doesn't even prevent the expansion of these uses. But I do agree that input from Native Americans is vital and many of them DID oppose the original monument. But man, everyone on here is drinking the political kool aid about land use and seemingly nobody wants land to be protected. The word freedom is throw around in this country the way legend is in mountain biking, as if it can be used everywhere and to justify everything.
  • 6 6
 @westeast: Give me a break. He was WAY out in left field with multiple claims, including the kool-aid theory about Obama doing it for political vengeance and "liberalism/socialism" having anything to do with land use. Total kool-aid drinker of a post.
  • 4 5
 as a california resident, i 100% agree with your comment. every word. commence the down voting
  • 1 1
 Actually most NMs are designated on the last days of a pres.
  • 4 3
 Dude, you make some good points but calling "liberalism a disease" and yelling "Obama" remove any credibility you have. This isn't the Breitbart comment section or your local AM radio station.

Why do I owe people in Utah the ability to make a living off MY federal land. As a resident of one of those commie blue states, I pay more out in federal tax dollars than I get back. Utah gets more back than they pay in. They are a bunch of mooches.

They should keep the land free and undeveloped so all of us have the opportunity to enjoy it if we want. If the locals want jobs they can move someplace else like I did or find away to do it without destroying federal land that belongs to all of us.
  • 3 1
 Hmmm my comment wasn’t just downvoted. It’s simply no longer there. Weird.
  • 1 0
 Happens all the time.
  • 2 0
 What a friggen mess. All this could be solved if we could trust each other. That is a fundamental weakness in humankind.
  • 4 1
 Unfortunately, there are many humans who you can only trust to do the wrong thing
  • 3 1
 I can't compete with all these essays in the comment section.... at least they are well thought out for the most part.
  • 7 6
 Don’t think for a second Patagonia is suddenly for biking! They absolutely despise our sport and just using the marketing BS to sell their overpriced products!
  • 6 3
 well, that, and initiate lawsuits to protect our lands. I had never bought any patagonia gear before, but spent a fortune on their website this month.
  • 1 0
 hey in the dude that guided these guys. everyone of them had a bike better than yours and could win any wheelie competition in the western hemisphere.
  • 3 1
 At least we still have gooseberry mesa
  • 4 3
 This 'need' for 'development' is gonna destroy our world... Well, no, it actually has destroyed most of it already...
  • 3 5
 Last I saw the world seems to be multiplying the people it has. So until you solve that issue. Development and need for resources is not going to end.
  • 2 1
 Just wanna say you rock RC! Always good material. Your like the godfather of PB! We all owe you a favor lol...
  • 8 11
 I do think its interesting how so many folks moan and complain about mining and oil/gas drilling. Take a look around folks. Nearly everything you wear, drive, live it, drive on, fly in, walk on, play with, recreate in, etc either come from mining or oil/gas. Without mining or drilling, what are we left with?
  • 18 4
 Progress
  • 3 2
 For sure. For me it's all about how it's done. We can definitely do things better and more responsibly. It's gotten way better than it was and a lot of the newer techniques leave less scars behind, but still, there's significant room for improvement and then we'd be closer to balancing the best of both worlds.
  • 8 2
 a cleaner and smarter future?
  • 2 3
 @sudbury-rider-9: let's hear it, tell me how you're going to type out your useless drivel on a computer that isn't built from materials that aren't mined...let's hear about that progress huh?
  • 2 1
 @nohit45: You are right, there is no place for innovation in our society. That sort of thing is for dreamers, lets stop investing in blue skies research and double down on clean coal. Keep the status quo going and learn to make crops in tailings ponds.
  • 1 0
 Burn that M*therf*c***r DOWN!
  • 6 5
 Amen, Richard.
  • 8 7
 Either way, FDT.
  • 10 9
 not my president
  • 4 0
 Its called Democracy..... Unfortunately we in the UK are currently suffering a similar problem....
  • 6 3
 you must not live in the US? despite what the flag next to your username indicates, otherwise he's definitely your president.
  • 6 0
 Not your choice maybe, still your president. Kimd of how the system works man.
  • 1 1
 @laxguy: no, he's not my president..blind allegiance is the kind of ignorance that leads to tyranny.
  • 2 0
 @ledude: thats not how it works though. he is the president, you may not like it but if you're an american citizen he is your president. put on your big boy pants and grow up.
  • 3 3
 RC sleeping with the nmE, Patagonia!
  • 6 9
 Read the title, skipped straight to the comments. Shit, no comments. :-(
  • 1 7
flag gnar-shredderz (Dec 14, 2017 at 11:09) (Below Threshold)
 That’s exactly what I did ????
  • 1 4
 Happy endings are like full releases
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.071452
Mobile Version of Website