Browns Canyon National Monument Meeting 12/6

[rijaca]

I see no need for yet another national monument by yet another egotistical president wanting to establish a legacy. If Colorado wants another park,
the state's residents should pay for it entirely.

The level of ignorance displayed by this post is almost overwhelming.

[HuskyRunner]

IMBA would like mt bikers to participate and encourage language that *clearly* separates bicycles from motorized vehicles. Bicycles need to be allowed in any newly designated area.

https://www.imba.com/alert/mountain-bik ... wns-canyon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Restricted recreational access, partly hiking with your dog (on leash or very well trained) would be my main reluctance to see Brown's Canyon as a Monument or National Park, as well as potentially restricting bike access. Just the designation as a Monument or National Park doesn't necessarily exclude dogs off trail, as in Shenandoah NP but seems that in most cases animals off trail, except for horses, are prohibited. I would prefer it protected as wilderness, state park or some other designation that allows more recreational uses.

[acidchylde]

I see no need for yet another national monument by yet another egotistical president wanting to establish a legacy. If Colorado wants another park,
the state's residents should pay for it entirely.

The level of ignorance displayed by this post is almost overwhelming.

Not to mention the irony, since it comes from someone out of state on a site primarily dedicated to outdoor recreation on federal lands in this one. <inflammatory> I guess we could take that proposal to get all the federal land in CO turned over to the state, then start charging out of state visitors exorbitant amounts to access it to address sentiments like this one. </inflammatory> I wonder if they have any idea how much state money (or money from in state) actually already goes toward developing and maintaining recreational facilities and lands they come here to see.

Just the designation as a Monument or National Park doesn't necessarily exclude dogs off trail, as in Shenandoah NP but seems that in most cases animals off trail, except for horses, are prohibited. I would prefer it protected as wilderness, state park or some other designation that allows more recreational uses.

You are correct, dog/pet access is ultimately decided by the individual park/monument managers. However the wilderness designation would automatically eliminate bikes. https://www.imba.com/resources/land-pro ... s-and-imba Apparently it's already a wilderness study area. http://brownscanyon.org/ It does appear to all be either USFS or BLM land http://krcc.org/post/browns-canyon-subj ... a-proposal

[Scott P]

Restricted recreational access, partly hiking with your dog (on leash or very well trained) would be my main reluctance to see Brown's Canyon as a Monument or National Park, as well as potentially restricting bike access.

It probably wouldn't restrict much in that regard. All of these newer national monuments designated since the 1990's are much more lax than the National Parks or older monuments, partially because they stay within jurisdiction of the current managing agencies. For example, Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument is still managed by the BLM. Dog restrictions aren't really that many:

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/grand_st ... gsenm.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the whole 2938 square mile monument for example, there is one hike you can't take a dog on and one short hike you have to have them leashed. All the rest of the monument has no dog restrictions. Other than in the parts that were designated wilderness, mountain bikes aren't restricted either.

Thus far, the new monuments are actually much less restrictive than wilderness areas when it comes to dogs and mountain bikes.

[mountaingoat-G]

I see no need for yet another national monument by yet another egotistical president wanting to establish a legacy. If Colorado wants another park,
the state's residents should pay for it entirely.

Actually this is probably all Federal land already. If a National Monument is declared, then the land
would be managed by the Park Service instead of whatever agency is managing it now. National Monument and National Park designations usually help
increase tourism.

this wasn't true for Grand Staircase Escalante NM, it's still managed by the BLM, not the Park Service...

[metalmountain]

I see no need for yet another national monument by yet another egotistical president wanting to establish a legacy. If Colorado wants another park,
the state's residents should pay for it entirely.

Actually this is probably all Federal land already. If a National Monument is declared, then the land
would be managed by the Park Service instead of whatever agency is managing it now. National Monument and National Park designations usually help
increase tourism.

this wasn't true for Grand Staircase Escalante NM, it's still managed by the BLM, not the Park Service...

The proposed area is about 50/50 between USDA and BLM, so its all already federally owned and managed. I tried to post the map here but its too big and I am to lazy to resize it, but you can see it here.

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... ption1.jpg

The most recent national monument to be added was the Organ Mountains in NM, which are amazing by the way. I was blown away when we went down there back in the spring. But anyway, the Organ Mountains NM is managed by the BLM still. So I would assume that this monument would operate similarly. I can't see much changing as far as what type of usage is allowed either in Browns Canyon if this passes.

[mountaingoat-G]

looks like it only land east of the river. I think the river itself is managed by State of Colorado Parks Department. I've done brown's canyon a few times and know that the State is the one who you buy day passes from. I also met a river ranger this summer just upstream from Hecla Junction and he worked for the State.