
Reprinted with permission
Ride With Respect Year in Review 2024
www.ridewithrespect.org
In 2024, Ride with Respect (RwR) focused on fighting a wave of excessive restrictions to recreational access that swept across Utah while continuing our stewardship work around Moab. If you love motorized trails, and haven’t already volunteered or donated this year, you can still send a check to Ride with Respect, 395 McGill Avenue, Moab Utah 84532. (Be sure to indicate if you’d like the receipt to show 2024 for tax-deduction purposes.) RwR has been blessed with many contributors at every level, including these ones who gave over a thousand dollars this year:
- Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation (UDOR)
- Anonymous
- Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA)
- Peter Lawson
- Moab Tour Company
- KMAC Corporation
- Anonymous
- Balance Resources
- Rob Stickler
- Grand County Recreation Special Service District
- John Borg
- Rocky Mountain ATV/MC
- Timberline Trailriders
- Xtreme 4×4 Tours
- Dave McEuen, CPA for HEB Business Solutions
Trail Work
Maintaining and improving trails is a key component to keep them open and enjoyable for all kinds of visitors as well as the animal inhabitants. In 2024 RwR staff and volunteers spent another few-hundred hours performing trail work (see photos), mostly state land like Sovereign Trail and Upper Twomile, but also on federal land in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This year much of our work was in tandem with UDOR’s new regional trail crew that’s based in Moab to work on motorized and non-motorized trails in southeast Utah. As the state is increasingly investing in this crew, it is our privilege to share RwR’s knowledge of the Moab-area trails, types of trail work, and tools for getting it done. As the state steps up in this way, RwR will continue to help maximize the productivity of UDOR’s regional trail crew.
Additionally RwR has organized several OHV trail hosts who volunteer monthly to perform light-duty maintenance, promote minimum-impact practices, and monitor conditions. Finally RwR has assisted the Motorized Trails Committee (MTC) of Grand County to do several-hundred hours of its own trail work in 2024. For the fifth year, I (Clif) was proud to chair the MTC, which has enjoyed regular attendance from BLM and Grand County staff, as well as long-time MTC members like Jeff Stevens, Kathy Tustanowski, Dave Hellman, Zane Taylor, Reid Bakken, Nick Oldham, Jason Taylor, and Dave Cozzens. This year’s most notable MTC rake & rides were to White Knuckle Hill and the Cliffhanger Waterfall where we ramped the rock ledges of less-difficult lines while leaving the more-difficult lines untouched.

Education
This past year, RwR encouraged responsible recreation practices through routine measures like hosting a booth at the Green River Dirt Bike Rally. Education is a significant outcome of my time volunteering on the BLM’s Utah Resource Advisory Council along with the board of three other nonprofits. NOHVCC and the American Motorcyclist Association continue to do important work that all trail riders should support. The Utah Public Lands Alliance (UPLA) has emerged as the most active statewide coalition of recreational access advocates. Last month UPLA released this video introducing the most tax-efficient ways to support any 501c3 organization.
RwR assisted the MTC to refine educational messages this past year. In several ways, the MTC provided input on the development of Grand County’s Motorized Trail Ambassador program, which is primarily funded by a state Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation (OHVR) grant. Also the MTC began to identify minimum-impact practices specific to graded roads (see attached “2024-09-10 MTC letter re graded-road education”). When OHV operators become aware of the cost to maintain graded roads for all types of use, they’re more likely to minimize wheelspin and moderate speed (especially around blind corners) so that everyone can safely use and enjoy graded roads. Such cooperation would prevent the need to strictly enforce a 25-mph speed limit, which doesn’t account for things like road alignment, ground conditions, vehicle width, vehicle capability, or operator experience.
The Utah OHV Program intends to more directly address graded roads in its education. Utah OHV Program manager Chase Pili is transferring to the DNR’s new Division of Law Enforcement, but his successor can utilize education specialists within UDOR. In just three years since UDOR was established, Chase helped develop an adult OHV education course, regional trail crews, and the evolution of OHV-related grant programs. We appreciate Chase’s accomplishments and his ability to take challenges in stride while serving responsible OHV recreation. We trust that Chase will continue serving it through his new position.
E-Bike use of Moab Mountain Bike Trails
As with UTVs, e-bikes (bicycles with electric motors to boost power) offer new recreation opportunities that also call for additional management. The BLM’s Moab Field Office wisely initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the effects of potentially allowing Class 1 e-bikes (limited to 750 watts of power up to 20 mph through pedal assistance and no throttle) on all of its trails that are currently open to analog (non-electric) mountain bikes with the exception of those that enter wilderness study areas (WSAs) or USFS land.
RwR assisted the MTC in producing recommendations to the Grand County Commission (see second page of attached “2024-11-08 RwR comm re e-bikes on MTB trails”). Essentially the MTC recommended asking the BLM to:
- Plan for the growing continuum of electric two-wheelers (from Class 1 e-bikes to electric motorcycles) largely by improving the quality and quantity of existing motorized singletrack,
- Include an alternative in the Draft EA that would fully consider allowing Class 1 e-bike use of all the trails listed in scoping, and
- Work with other government entities and industry to further establish e-bike classification that’s enforceable so that it’s manageable.
The Grand County Commission drafted a letter that included the MTC’s first point, but excluded the second and third points, instead supporting the Trail Mix Committee’s suggestion to only open the MOAB Brands trail system to Class 1 e-bikes for now in order to see how it goes. At the commission meeting, I reiterated the MTC’s points (minutes 0:03:30 to 0:08:00 of this video). Then the commission deliberated (minutes 0:56:00 to 1:19:00) and ultimately approved its draft letter unchanged. Nevertheless the BLM could choose to develop one alternative that opens the MOAB Brands trails to e-bikes, and another alternative that opens all the listed trails. Further, the new commission will have a chance to comment on the Draft EA in 2025.
In the meantime, RwR chose to support the MTC’s recommendations, and we incorporated them into the comments that RwR submitted to the BLM. While we appreciate Trail Mix’s concerns and suggestions, we also appreciate the years of research and serious thought that went into the MTC recommendations. Ultimately we believe that the input of both committees should be analyzed by the alternatives of a Draft EA.
Labyrinth Rims TMP
As described in our 2023 Year in Review, the BLM decision to close 317 miles of designated routes in the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges travel management plan (TMP) is being appealed by RwR in partnership with TPA, COHVCO, and CORE. This year we challenged the completeness of the administrative record (AR) since it’s supposed to include Labyrinth Rims correspondence that was directly or indirectly considered by the decisionmaker who, in this case, is the manager of the Moab Field Office. We know of such correspondence between the decisionmaker and all higher levels of the BLM (Canyon Country District, Utah State office, and the headquarters in D.C. including the BLM’s deputy director who actually represented the Wilderness Society in 2017 when signing the settlement agreement that directed the BLM to revisit its TMP in Labyrinth Rims). After much back-and-forth, the BLM provided several more documents, which inform our appeal through the IBLA as well as the companion case that the State of Utah and BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) are spearheading in federal court. However even more relevant correspondence exists, and we don’t know how the IBLA will handle it, but we are optimistic that the BLM will be more willing to accommodate motorized recreation opportunities after the change of administration.
In fact, we anticipate that the next administration will close far fewer routes in Utah through the TMPs and will add far fewer new restrictions to its resource management plans (RMPs). The planning participation and appeals of all these OHV groups along with the State of Utah has laid the groundwork for this course correction. Now we must follow through to ensure a reasonable outcome in Labyrinth Rims and elsewhere across the state.
This past February, this newspaper article described how most motorized trail enthusiasts believe that the Labyrinth Rims closures resulted from the BLM being largely captured by groups seeking to vastly expand the designation of wilderness, which prohibits mechanized travel including bicycling, while other motorized trail enthusiasts believe the closures resulted from excessive negative impacts of the motorized routes. Unfortunately both camps are correct. Decisions like the Labyrinth Rims closures were in fact primarily influenced by wilderness-expansion groups through the current administration, which calls for resistance through engagement in the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches. However excessive negative impacts greatly enable the wilderness-expansion groups to win the sympathy of some land managers, local residents, and even judges.
To deny the influence of negative impacts, some point to the fact that most of the Labyrinth Rims closures occurred where motorized use is relatively low, and that most of the BLM’s stated rationale was not based on misbehavior by motorized users. However this denial overlooks a couple major points. First, the official BLM rationale often differs from the real motivation for closure, as the agency may use whatever excuse seems most likely to hold up in court. Perhaps the agency realizes courts would rule that misbehavior is most appropriately corrected at the level of the individual perpetrator rather than an entire user group. Perhaps the agency believes it’d be more difficult for motorized trail enthusiasts to refute a resource specialist’s claim of potential impacts. Second, the level of use doesn’t equate to the level of impact, and assuming that use equals impact is exactly why land managers often close routes with use levels that are lower currently. They leave routes of higher use alone because they’re popular and the damage is already done, but they close routes of lower use to prevent the eventual spread of use and the negative impacts that they assume will inevitably follow.
Fortunately in reality the level of use is merely one factor in the level of impact. Other factors include individual behavior (which is influenced by education and enforcement) along with the route’s location, trail design, maintenance, and other forms of management. In Labyrinth Rims, RwR spent a couple-thousand hours rerouting a couple-dozen trails, which were problem spots where RwR proposed a solution that the BLM analyzed and approved for RwR to then implement. In 2023, all but three of the two-dozen reroutes were spared from closure. RwR and its partners are currently appealing the closure of those three reroutes because the BLM’s rationale simply doesn’t add up. Nevertheless we credit the BLM for its work on the other twenty-one reroutes, which probably would’ve been closed if not for RwR’s work, thus the investment was worthwhile for motorized recreationists along with the conservation benefits. Although legal work and other advocacy are essential ingredients, helping land managers solve problems can pay off because agency decisions are sometimes based on realities on the ground.
Even when those in the administrative, legislative, or judicial branches understand that recreation can be managed in a more sophisticated manner than simply containing a problem, excessive negative impacts nevertheless provide them with political cover to close routes because they mistakenly hope closure will be easier than active management. This cover is effective even when the closures and impacts don’t align geographically. So it’s on us to call out premature closure, yet it’s also on us to promote responsible riding practices and the stewardship of public lands. Basic measures like staying precisely on the trail and slowing down when passing other people or animals serves the interest of our own form of recreation, the public, and the planet.
Dolores River TMP
The Moab Field Office initiated another TMP as directed by the 2017 settlement, this one called Dolores River because it covers routes on both sides of the river (east to the Colorado state line and west to the beginning of Top of The World Trail) from Polar Mesa at the south end to Dry Gulch at the north end. Again in partnership with TPA, COHVCO, and CORE, RwR submitted these scoping comments emphasizing that a thorough route inventory is needed to meet the 2017 settlement’s intent of revisiting the 2008 TMP decision, then we gave a couple examples of valuable and viable existing routes that were inventoried but closed in 2008, plus a couple examples of valuable and viable existing routes that weren’t even inventoried in 2008 and ought to finally be considered for designation. Our comments also emphasized that the 2017 settlement may require developing an alternative that closes routes in WSAs and natural areas, but not in other lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) where the RMP decided not to manage for wilderness characteristics. Further, closing routes for wilderness characteristics in those LWCs would contradict the RMP. Finally we emphasized that the forthcoming draft EA should fully account for the fact that most closures would negatively impact local socio-economics, reduce the trail system’s carrying capacity, reduce practical access for non-motorized uses, reduce compliance of the TMP, reduce sustainability of the remaining routes, increase crowding and conflicts, reduce the stewardship capacity of motorized recreation groups, and reduce the agency’s readiness for emerging technologies such as electric vehicles.
The Grand County Commission drafted a letter very similar to its 2021 request for so many closures in Labyrinth Rims, so RwR commented during their meeting (minutes 0:23:00 to 0:29:30 of this video). Then the commission deliberated (minutes 2:52:00 to 3:31:30) and ultimately approved its draft letter with slight improvements to acknowledge that it may be appropriate for motorized routes to cross riparian areas and that topography can be factored in to meet the commission’s request for 30% of the planning area to be at least 0.5 miles from any motorized route and 15% of the planning area to be at least 1 mile from any motorized route. The meeting is summarized in this newspaper article. RwR welcomes these improvements, but they should go much further to achieve the balance espoused by the commission’s letter, and we look forward to working with the next commission on the forthcoming Draft EA.
San Rafael Swell TMP
Another TMP that’s just as important as Labyrinth Rims is the San Rafael Swell, which actually includes Chimney Rock to the northeast and the Mussentuchit area to the southwest. The BLM released a Draft EA with only one acceptable alternative (Alternative D). The more that RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE investigated the Swell TMP, the more fundamental problems we found, so we wound up commenting in a first, second, and third wave. Before doing a TMP, the BLM should complete its overdue congressional requirement to implement the Dingell Act by amending the Price RMP so a management direction is established for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and acres released from WSA status among other things. Then, for accurate TMP analysis, the no-action alternative should reflect the fact that no TMP has yet to be completed for much of the planning area (which is why the 2008 RMP aimed to complete its TMP within five years, only to be stalled by SUWA’s RMP suit that culminated in the 2017 settlement). The planning area also includes over a hundred miles of existing routes that were permanently closed by Dingell Act wilderness designation, which displaces use that should be accommodated by the San Rafael Swell TMP. The Draft EA mistakenly assumed that closing hundreds of miles of routes, as in alternatives B and C, would have negligible socio-economic impact on Emery and Wayne counties. In fact, closing just one trail like Five Miles of Hell or Waterfall Trail, as in Alternative B, couldn’t be replaced in comparable terrain because the Dingell Act prohibits the construction of new motorized routes in the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area or the 17 wilderness areas in Emery County. Also alternatives B and C propose to disproportionately close routes in LWC, which suggests that closures would be for the purpose of minimizing impacts to wilderness characteristics despite no such directive coming from the Dingell Act, 2017 settlement, 2008 RMP, or (most importantly) Congress.
At the tail end of 2024, the BLM released a decision that’s essentially a hybrid of alternatives B and C, which is inadequate for all the aforementioned reasons, so we are prepared to appeal it. Hopefully, under the next administration, the BLM will see the wisdom of regrouping to build a more solid foundation. The Swell is renowned for motorized trails, and the Dingell Act designated half of it as wilderness, so the remaining half will depend on developing a TMP more thoroughly.
Henry Mountains TMP
The Henry Mountains/Fremont Gorge TMP covers nearly 1.5 million acres from Factory Butte down to Ticaboo and everything between Capital Reef National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area such as the OHV route from Big Ridge down to Poison Spring Canyon. The BLM released a draft EA but, as RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE explained in our comments, it’s based on a route inventory that’s still missing hundreds of miles of existing routes that have never been acknowledged let alone analyzed for designation to date. The Richfield RMP acknowledges the 2008 TMP’s incompleteness, pledging to collaborate with interested parties and add routes, yet the BLM still hasn’t formally invited the public to submit routes since RMP scoping in 2003. Since 2008, the BLM has added 146 miles to its inventory, yet it misses hundreds more. Many of these miles have high recreational value and low negative impacts, and we provided several examples, from the outskirts of Hanksville to the top of the Henry Mountains. All action alternatives of the draft EA disproportionately close routes in LWCs despite having no directive to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics. The draft EA fails to recognize the socio-economic impacts to Wayne County that any alternative would have, even the no-action alternative since actually implementing it would block access to hundreds of miles of existing routes that have been in continuous use since most of the area was open to cross-country travel prior to 2008. We hope the BLM will resolve these issues to develop a TMP that provides adequate access for all kinds of recreation particularly as places like Labyrinth Rims and the Swell become crowded.
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area TMP
Congress established the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in 1972 for the National Park Service (NPS) “to provide for the public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of Lake Powell and lands adjacent thereto in the states of Arizona and Utah and to preserve the scenic, scientific, and historic features contributing to the public enjoyment of the area.” In 2021 the NPS began limiting motorized travel to designated routes in the vast majority of the 1.25-million-acre recreation area, which makes sense, but they designated just 388 miles of route. Perpetually in search of further restrictions, the wilderness-expansion groups sued and settled so the NPS would consider just that. Unfortunately in 2024 the NPS proposed to prohibit OHV use from another 25 miles of dirt roads. The roads would be closed to full-size vehicles and motorcycles that aren’t registered for interstate highway use as well as all ATVs and UTVs regardless of whether a state permits them for street use. As explained in the comments submitted by RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE, the 25 miles of dirt road are entirely appropriate for all types of OHV, and the NPS failed to demonstrate any need for its proposed prohibition. A few of the roads are even maintained to a higher standard by counties and the State of Utah, all of which have emphatically expressed support to accommodate OHV use of the roads, and they offer millions of dollars in grants to help manage routes that are open to OHV use. Several of the roads provide the only access to spurs and loops on BLM land in the Richfield and Monticello field offices. Others simply provide significant recreational value in their own right. We hope the NPS will come to its senses and decide to continue managing the recreation area like a recreation area.
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument RMP
As described in our 2023 Year in Review, the BLM released a Draft RMP for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in which every action alternative would be a lot more restrictive than any prior RMP of this national monument.
This past August, the BLM released a Proposed RMP for Grand Staircase that’s as draconian as the Draft RMP, so it’s being protested by RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE. Nearly all of the 1.86-million-acre monument was zoned as OHV Limited (with motor vehicles limited to designated routes), yet the proposed RMP zones two thirds of it as OHV Closed, and yet the BLM’s justification for this sweeping restriction consists of just a few sentences. The agency argues that it’ll require closing only the V-Road, and nearly half of the monument is already WSA. However its impact analysis of closing the V-Road is nearly non-existent, let alone the other routes that aren’t designated but nevertheless exist, including some R.S. 2477 roads in the WSAs. The fact that WSAs already occupy nearly half the monument is all the more reason to leave the remainder open for non-wilderness uses.
The Proposed RMP adds a couple designations under most of the acres that it zones as OHV Closed. First it designates these acres as Primitive Areas, which is not to be confused with the congressional designation of a Primitive Area, rather it’s a lower-level decision to manage the given acres “without motorized or mechanized recreational access.” By prohibiting mechanized recreational access, it’s even more restrictive than OHV Closed zoning. Second, most of the OHV Closed acres are LWC, and the Proposed RMP chooses to manage nearly all LWC for its wilderness characteristics. Not only can’t managers approve any new route in LWCs that are managed for wilderness characteristics, but they typically can’t approve any use of heavy equipment to maintain the existing routes, thus it’s yet another layer that hobbles recreation opportunities and practical management.
The proposed RMP provides no site-specific or even area-by-area analysis of these three sweeping designations that essentially preempt any TMP work from ever occurring in two thirds of the monument. Areas zoned as OHV Limited already tend to become 99% closed in practice, yet zoning them as OHV Closed prevents any future consideration of even a mile of e-bike trail or a campground loop, even if the very purpose of a new route is to reduce net impacts or protect monument objects. Many of the OHV Closed boundaries run right up to the edge of designated routes, thereby straitjacketing routes from potential rerouting, despite that many such routes are essential to the monument proclamation’s goal of “providing visitors with an opportunity to experience a remote landscape rich with opportunities for adventure and self-discovery.” We’ll continue to challenge any presidentially proclaimed monument from becoming a stepping stone to de facto wilderness or, in the case of Grand Staircase, a leaping stone to 1.25-million acres of de facto wilderness.
Bears Ears National Monument RMP
The BLM released a preliminary Draft RMP (aka MMP) for Bears Ears National Monument described in RwR’s 2022 Year in Review. This past March, the BLM released a Draft RMP that portrayed the no-action alternative somewhat more accurately, but further developed action alternatives with alarming ramifications, so RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE submitted extensive comments. Given that the 1.36-million-acre monument extends from Mexican Hat north the whole way to Chicken Corners near the Grand County line, the Grand County Commission drafted its own letter, and RwR commented during their meeting (minutes 2:12:00 to 2:17:00 of this video). The commission deliberated (minute 3:17:00 to 3:44:00) and approved its draft letter while incorporating a couple of RwR’s points, first that the RMP should avoid excessive restrictions to any form of recreation, and second that local outfitting and guiding services should continue to be accommodated. While RwR still differs with parts of the approved letter, especially given that proclamation of the monument bypassed Congress in the first place, we sincerely appreciate the commission for starting to build consensus.
Unfortunately in October the BLM released a Proposed RMP which had so many unacceptable aspects that the final points of protest from RwR, TPA, COHVCO, and CORE merely scratched the surface. Similar to Grand Staircase, the Bears Ears Proposed RMP zones nearly half of the monument as OHV Closed, and yet the BLM’s justification for this sweeping restriction consists of just a few sentences plus the excuse that the NPS requested consistency surrounding Canyonlands National Park. For one thing, consistency is already achieved since motor vehicles are already limited to designated routes on both sides of the park boundary. For another thing, unlike Bears Ears National Monument, Canyonlands National Park was actually established by Congress, and Congress chose the current park boundary so that management would be different on each side. The agency argues that zoning nearly half of the monument as OHV Closed will require closing only 32 miles of designated routes, but its impact analysis of closing these routes is nearly non-existent despite that we submitted photos and described the value of many of these routes. The agency also argues that nearly one third of the monument is already WSA or Dark Canyon Wilderness, but that’s all the more reason to leave the remainder open for non-wilderness uses.
Similar to Grand Staircase, the Bears Ears Proposed RMP adds a couple designations under most of the acres that it zones as OHV Closed. First it places these acres into a Remote Zone and, while the earlier Draft RMP didn’t specify that the Remote Zone would be non-motorized, the Proposed RMP inserts that the Remote Zone is explicitly “for non-motorized and non-mechanized recreation.” Second, most of the OHV Closed acres are LWC, and the Proposed RMP chooses to manage nearly all LWC for its wilderness characteristics. While some of it would be managed “to minimize impacts” to wilderness characteristic instead of “to protect” wilderness characteristics, which would be a less-restrictive form of wilderness management, this distinction appears to be the latest iteration to rationalize a perpetual wilderness review that expands and never contracts wilderness management. After exhausting the Section 202 areas, one administration conceived of ostensibly just inventorying LWC but actually designating some of them as natural areas, and now another administration introduces RMP decisions to merely minimize impacts to the remaining LWC as if it’s not the next stage of a ratchet strap that has no release mechanism. Anyway the Proposed RMP provides no site-specific or even area-by-area analysis of these three sweeping designations that essentially preempt any TMP work from ever occurring in nearly half of the monument.
While closing nearly half of the monument is better than two thirds as in Grand Staircase, the Bears Ears Proposed RMP is actually worse in several ways. First, across the 200,000 acres of LWC managed to protect wilderness characteristics, it prohibits Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) for any motorized or mechanized use even if it’s non-commercial. Second, it directs a soundscape management plan for hundreds of thousands of acres that would allow louder sounds for half of the time, but would limit sound for the other half of the time to 30 dBA or even 25 dBA. Such low levels of sound are easily exceeded by slight wind or light rain, which makes them impractical to monitor, and ultimately less effective than vehicle-based sound standards. Third, in the Manti-La Sal National Forest portion of the monument, the Proposed RMP finally shows the current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum boundaries and designated routes accurately. However these things were completely inaccurate in scoping and the Draft RMP despite our repeated requests to correct them, which impedes the public’s ability to meaningfully participate in the process. Fourth, the Proposed RMP seems to fundamentally regard recreation as more of a nuisance than a key tool to promote the health of visitors and ultimately the health of the surrounding resources by fostering an awareness, appreciation, and ultimately stewardship of public lands.
Fifth, despite that the “Bears Ears cultural landscape” is identified as a monument object to protect through reliance on Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and tribal co-stewardship, it isn’t defined by either the Proposed RMP or the one adopted by the Bears Ears Commission (BEC) that was developed by the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (which is an entity that was created a decade ago by a wilderness-expansion group to campaign for the proclamation of a Bears Ears National Monument). The Proposed RMP and the one adopted by the BEC both refer to a single Bears Ears cultural landscape, multiple cultural landscapes within the monument, and other cultural landscapes that extend beyond the monument. Protecting this ill-defined object seems likely to affect recreation given that the plan adopted by the BEC asserts that tribal nations of the monument do not view many forms of recreation as an appropriate use of the Bears Ears cultural landscape. The Proposed RMP even directs the BLM to work with the BEC to identify whether specific areas need to be closed to cross-country hiking to protect BENM objects, which would include the Bears Ears cultural landscape, thus a cross-country hiking prohibition has the potential to be extensive. Another example in the Proposed RMP is that, according to Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, the Bears Ears cultural landscape requires seasonal “rest,” which clearly has the potential to seasonally restrict the entire monument. RwR supports the conservation of natural and cultural resources, particularly archaeological sites since they’re irreplaceable, but the Proposed RMP combines several ill-defined concepts with immense potential to unduly harm all forms of recreation across the 1.36-million-acre monument. To accomplish lasting conservation, we urge the BLM to suspend its grandiose plans in favor of collaborating with all stakeholders to identify what’s actually needed to “protect Bears Ears.”
The seeds of this mess were sown by presidential administrations that pitched Bears Ears as somehow righting the past wrongs done to indigenous people, and that exploited the concept of a cultural landscape to justify the monument’s enormity, specifically to parlay the political momentum of the proposed Cedar Mesa National Monument into a Bears Ears National Monument that accretes the southeast half of the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument (no doubt saving the northwest half for later in combination with any other “cultural landscape” that’s deemed worthy of national monument “protection”).
Antiquities Act and Federal Agency Reform
The Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Proposed RMPs, along with even more recent mega-monument proclamations such as Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument that was described in our 2023 Year in Review add to the pile of glaring evidence that presidents aren’t using the Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect antiquities so much as to dictate federal-land designations (one million acres after the next) that are actually the purview of Congress. This violation of the separation of powers has been addressed in our Year in Review going back to 2012 when RwR responded to the proposed Greater Canyonlands National Monument, which was followed by the Utah Public Lands Initiative as a good-faith legislative alternative developed from 2012 through 2016, then the 2016 proclamation of Bears Ears National Monument that was scaled back in 2017 only to be made larger than ever in 2021. Our 2021 Year in Review described Bears Ears in the context of the three branches of federal government.
Now we’d like to address what’s next. After thirteen years of Antiquities Act abuse derailing any consensus for conservation in southeast Utah (and in other regions for even longer), Congress ought to clarify what it means by a monument object and the smallest area compatible with protecting it, or cap the size at 640 acres like the Antiquities Act bill did until an eleventh hour change in 1906. Better yet, simply require congressional approval for monument proclamation because many subsequent laws have eliminated the need for a president to take unilateral action. Unfortunately even the next Congress may not recognize these realities until the judicial branch takes a hard look at proclamations that claim to protect objects like a Bears Ears cultural landscape which remains ill-defined eight years later. Fortunately the 2024 Supreme Court ruling that ends “agency deference” should invite judicial review of agency interpretations for concepts like a monument object and the smallest area compatible with protecting it. Even more fortunately, the State of Utah and BRC are challenging the Bears Ears proclamation itself, and RwR could provide its local perspective.
Over the 23-year history of RwR, not only have presidents become more polarized, but they’ve stepped further outside their lane. Instead of presiding over the executive branch to execute the decisions of Congress, now they’re more prone to simply dictate. Part of the problem is a Congress paralyzed by its own polarization, but it’s not for the president to take the place of Congress, as Congress can work out a compromise while presidents these days just swing the pendulum further back and forth every four years. There are many recent examples of executive overreach, but few seem worse than adding to the ever-growing list of mega-monuments.
In fact reining in executive overreach would be one way of achieving the “government efficiency” sought by the next administration. The eight years of national monument planning to protect the Bears Ears cultural landscape has been quite expensive and unproductive. Efficiency is a function of cost and productivity, and there’s important work to be done in land management, so we hope they can increase productivity as much as reducing cost. While executive overreach should be reined in, agencies should be empowered with hiring, firing, and other employment practices that are based on merit and performance to retain and promote the best employees for a long and productive career. These goals ought to be bipartisan, which would enable efficiency through legislation that’s more effective and enduring, but all three branches could help. For example, federal agencies could more efficiently implement environmental laws if Congress were more specific, and new judicial scrutiny of agency interpretations would help prod Congress to act. In any case, we applaud the goal of improving efficiency, and hope for a careful and comprehensive assessment.
Conclusion
The national-monument controversy has exposed regions like southeast Utah to all aspects of federal government. RwR will continue to engage in agency planning, challenging decisions when necessary, and working with agencies when possible along with other government and other stakeholders. We’ll continue to help implement plans and maintain trails, which keeps us grounded to the whole point of RwR, which is conserving diverse opportunities for outdoor fun in this diverse region. Many thanks for supporting these efforts and recreating responsibly.
Clif Koontz
Executive Director
Ride with Respect
www.ridewithrespect.org
395 McGill Avenue
Moab, Utah 84532
435-259-8334 land
Downloads / Attachments
Ride With Respect Year in Review 2024
2024-09-10 MTC letter re graded-road education
2024-11-08 RwR comm re e-bikes on MTB trails