FY26 budget outline

[wildhiker]

Though the landscape of Pinnacles NP seems little changed to me over the last 40 years, conservation efforts have increased (re-introduction of wild condors and seasonal closures of the talus caves to protect bat roosting sites), and visitation has increased greatly. Visitation has especially increased in the last 5 years since the Covid epidemic started - but that is true of every outdoor area that we frequent in the Bay Area and beyond. People discovered hiking and camping and other outdoor activities as "safe" during Covid, and they have continued to pursue these.
-Phil

[dave54]

Regarding the mention of Bears Ears.
The Antiquities Act specifically states the monument must only be the minimum size necessary. Obama went way beyond that. If the reason for the NM designation was to protect the archaeological resources as claimed, Section 1 of the Act already covered it. Antiquities are protected on all federal lands, not just National Monuments. The same goal could have been achieved by directing the BLM to increase patrols in the area.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the government to consult and cooperate with the affected states when determining federal land policies. Obama flipped the middle finger at Utah and at local goverments with Bear's Ears. Most National Monuments have strong state and local support. Bear's Ears was pandering to a small handful of natives and non-local activists.

Pinnacles is an odd one. I do not feel it merits National Park status. Should have stayed a NM. However, I agree with Satitla, or Medicine Lake highlands as a National Monument (not a Park). It is geologically interesting and unique. The Forest Service had already withdrawn it from multiple use and made it a special emphasis area, so monument status really does not change anything on the ground. Just makes the area protected by law instead of agency policy. The boundaries are larger than needed, though.

Parks, Monuments, and Wilderness are supposed to be the crown jewels of our public lands. Why are we cheapening the collection with plastic trinkets? Give certain areas protection when they are special and unique, not to solicit votes and pander favor with voting blocs.

[JayOtheMountains]

Having accomplished several trips to the BE expanse, I can certainly levy an opinion that while the Antiquities Act is there to protect the individual sites, it does nothing to keep the landscapes and surrounding areas protected. Hypothetically, without NM designation entire swaths of area directly adjacent to cultural sites are at significant risk from development and mineral extraction. The issue is much larger than protecting a pueblo here and there; it's about protecting the lands that were integral to the peoples who inhabited (and still do) those areas. Get off the pavement near Bluff and work your way to Blanding and you'll instantly understand. It's the same logic of preserving the Sierras outside of the National Parks - where those areas have been designated wilderness areas, BE was intended to keep this uninhabited land just that way.

It's an incredible landscape. It is jam-packed with cultural sites. The detriment is what is versus what is not cataloged - and rightfully so; there are many who will never reveal some of the magical places out there in BE as the risk of revealing a place outweighs keeping it secluded and in tact. I cant' begin to tell you what it feels like to come across an intact grainery or a kiva with mostly intact artifacts. That's the magic of Bears Ears. That's the magic of Escalate.