Portions of it. SITLA lands are scattered. Some of it does currently have road access and much of it does not. Take a look at this PDF map.
I do not see any Utah or privately-owned lands that do not have road access in that map.
I’m sure everyone’s got their own idea, with everywhere from 1% smaller to 99%.
Really? All the little blue squares? You’re serious?
The feds are the only ones with any obligation to listen to anybody outside the state of Utah. I don’t live in Utah; the Utah state legislature (or the San Juan County Commission) have no legal or moral obligation even to consider my interests. However, these are the public lands of the United States; that means ALL of the United States. That means they belong to every American, and when deciding what to do with the lands, the interests of all Americans should be considered. How can your state legislature do that? What would motivate them even to try?
Not all of the little blue squares in that map are inside the border of the Bear Ears National Monument.
Besides, there doesn’t have to be road access to EVERY Utah or privately owned parcel of land for there to be one that DOES have road access and can support a 16 mile ATV trail.
Further, I would surmise, even if I can’t prove it, that if someone owned land inside the boundary of the Bear Ears National Monument, they would be allowed to create some means to access it.
Well, you’re not doing a very good job of putting forth any kind of convincing alternative to what Obama did.
Should I take this as an admission that you now can see portions of Utah-owned land within the monument that is not currently road-accessible?
You would “surmise” and Dr Strangelove thinks it’s “really obvious” but remember, it took 12 years to get approval to build a little road back when it was regular old BLM land before it was designated a monument.
If the federal government behaved reasonably in these matters, we probably wouldn’t have an issue, but they often don’t.
‘Hey SITLA, you can auction off those mineral rights if you want, and we might get around to approving a road to access them sometime in the next decade or two, if we feel like it.’ Gee thanks, asshats (directed at Feds, not posters here)
My preferred alternative would be to revert it to the BLM and National Forest land that it was before he did it.
No, because I can’t see every road or access that may be available to that parcel of land on that map.
Yes, I am surprised it took that long. However, my surprise is tempered by the fact that I know how government civilians work 
See above answer
See above.
In any event, it seems like you are pissed that there will no longer be an ATV trail built on this land. I’m sure that is a valid reason for you, but it seems unconvincing to others in this thread from different parts of the country. And since it is Federal Land, we would need to be convinced that the ATV trail is more important than preserving some natural habitat.
I don’t even really care about nature, or preservation of natural habitats or whatever, but I hate agreeing with someone based on “I don’t care about nature anyway, so mine and ATV away!” especially when it’s in a state that I don’t live in. I just hate people saying “It’s bad!” without any reasoning even more.
I appreciate your input on the matter though.
but i dont think that’s one of the options, is it? it looks like the area is going to get some sort of governmental protection one way or the other.
mc
It’s definitely one of the options, but not the most likely. The order called for reports that “shall include recommendations for such Presidential actions, legislative proposals, or other actions consistent with law as the Secretary may consider appropriate to carry out the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.” One of those could be to rescind the designation entirely.
National Forest and BLM lands already have “some sort of governmental protection”, it’s just a lower level than National Monument.
Being born and raised in SoCal, I have never experienced this in SB.
Well, I have. I’m glad you haven’t experienced it. It was miserable in the mid-70s.
(posts snipped)
Something about this timeline doesn’t appear to add up.
Me neither.
I lived in California in the early 70s through the late 70s. I moved away, then returned in 1984. I visited beaches in Santa Barbara in those periods and the tar was an issue on the beaches for the times I was there. Sorry you don’t like the timeline, but it is what it is. They did eventually get it cleaned up, but the residual tar globs were there for decades.
I guess it’s ok to spill oil all over beaches so long as you yourselves never experienced the aftereffects of it. Seems to me you’re both just looking hard for a straw man.
some tar naturally occurs on ca beaches. from those same oil deposits they’re drilling for offshore, some of the crude can percolate to the surface of the sea floor, float to the surface of the water and wash onshore.
http://www.soscalifornia.org/tar-on-california-beaches/
mc
Well, that’s interesting, mikecurtis. Ignorance fought. In the years I was there, tarry feet were invariably attributed to the oil spill of 1969.
I see that the first conclusive study came out in 1999 and it wasn’t until 2009 that another study was able to quantify the amount of seepage. I wasn’t paying much attention by that time as I only just drove through Santa Barbara to points south.
Thank you for presenting factual information and for not calling me a liar.
It is my opinion that the federal government gets to do that here because, you know, it’s the property of the United States of America. Yeah, at times, that probably sucks for people in Utah (or Nevada or Oregon or Idaho or Montana or …) who would love to have control over those portions of their state. But oh well. I have property that abuts BLM land in California and I have no part of me that thinks that should give me a significant say in how that land is managed.