Some people commenting here dont seem to understand that Bears Ears is already
federal property, nobodys land is getting taken from them.
The "federal government" doesn't want this designation. The
Democrats and Obama do because, with that designation, Obama can put another
feather in his "legacy" cap and it will win the Dems more votes in
November. This is SIMPLY just about control and votes.
I thought Donald Trump was the only one who took confiscated property for his
own personal agenda, and satisfaction. Guess I was wrong. Way to go bho!
PLEASE, we need to see past the "National Monument = Protection"
narrative. It is false. Everyone seems to agree that Bears Ears and the rest of
the 1.9 million acres is a special place and deserves protection. Shinning a
spotlight on it and attracting millions of people will not protect the
environment, rather it will have serious negative impacts to the environment.
"Balance" is a wonderful thing, San Juan County currently
has a nice balance of federal, state, and private lands with varying levels of
protection. Most of all, the region is protected by its rugged landscape,
remoteness, and relative obscurity.@Spangs"Zions
Nat'l Park, one of the most beautiful places in the world, is saturated
with cars, noise and people...parks and monuments foster love and respect for
our natural world. There is value in that." I don't
disagree--but we already have that (there is already a marvelous natioanl park
in San Juan County and three more a stone's throw away + two national
monuments in San Juan County, not to mention primitive areas, state parks, etc.
Can't we just keep a few areas in their pristine state? BALANCE!
67% to 74% of the state being federally owned I guess is not enough. I seem to
remember a certain communist advisor to our current POTUS saying in regards to
the native americans "no more broken treaties, No more broken treaties, give
them the wealth, give them the respect." I guess that ends at the EPA and
the Nationasl forest service.
One thing I know for sure - federal control counts for plenty in the
preservation of wilderness. I have a perfect example in south Davis County.
There is a canyon there which was a perfect instance of Wasatch wilderness. It
was as God made it if you will. But it was not included in the national forest
system. So it now has two ugly pipeline scars running through it, thanks to
uncaring locals and former congressman Jim Hansen. Federal control matters a
Please don't take this land from us indeed. Create the monument to protect
it for ALL of us.
@Laura Bilington"How...?" Have you been to Arches/Moab or Mesa
Verde lately? There is your answer.2nd Q: I do not want the land
restricted to locals, and it currently is not. In fact if you came to visit, I
would love to guide you to some amazing places that, yes, have been kept
pristine and protected by ruggedness, remoteness and relative obscurity (and it
didn't require a NM designation to keep them that way). I truly believe you
and I have the same goal, I just think a false narrative has pulled the wool
over your and many others' eyes into thinking a NM designation will
accomplish it. I apologize if that comment seems a little condescending, I
don't mean it that way. I guess locals (of all political stripes) just have
a little different perspective and a far greater impact on their lives, whatever
decision is made.3rd: I could live with that, but I would prefer a
more balanced policy developed through a grass-roots democratic process. FYI,
San Juan County already has a nice balance of national parks, national
monuments, national rec areas, state parks, primitive/wilderness areas, FS, BLM,
res, etc. Currently: 0 wells, 1 mine in 1.9M acres!
I support the Monument.I don't trust the Utah Legislature or
Governor's office to do a better job than the Federal government has
done.Utah's power brokers are interested in exploitation and
consumption. The whole argument by the State of Utah when it comes
to federal land takeovers is dependent upon the upswing of the oil industry.
The only way the state takeover of these lands is profitable is if oil prices
are high... much higher than they currently are. Their own study conducted
several years ago confirmed this.The cost of maintaining the lands
would become a huge burden during hard times (oil). We'd become like
Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Texas. Our economy would hinge on oil. Why take that
risk when our economy is strong and viable as it currently functions.
@No Monument: You are right about the people. They will come. They
will boost economic activity for the region, as we have clearly seen in the
case of the Grand Staircase Nat'l Monument. For most pro-business folk,
this is a good thing. But if you're wanting to keep San Juan County off the
tourist map, I agree that a local would not necessarily be to stoked about this.
Zion Nat'l Park, one of the most beautiful places in the world, is
saturated with cars, noise and people. But just as a local zoo fosters our love
of all Earth's creatures, parks and monuments foster love and respect for
our natural world. There is value in that. @Sanefan: You,
however, are wrong about the "radical environmentalists." The original
proposal was submitted by The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. This is an
alliance of the Navajo, Hopi, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni
tribes. It was based on 5 years of study by the non-profit organization Utah
Diné Bikéyah. Are they environmentalists? Yeah. The OG original
environmentalists. Are the "radical?" Yeah, if you think scrapping back
a bit of land stolen from them is "radical."
BENM please President Obama...The Utah six do not represent Utah, only the God
of Greed and Plunder...
This puts the poor president in a sticky mess. Does he make the
environmentalists happy or the Native Americans? That's a tough position
for politicians who gain their power by dividing Americans into separate
minority groups to "buy" influence instead of seeing ALL citizens as
Americans instead of hyphenated Americans.
@No Monument wrote, "The area is naturally protected by ruggedness,
remoteness, and relative obscurity..we should be uniting in opposition to a NM
which would bring far more development and PEOPLE (the biggest threat to the
environment) to the region. Please help us keep the special places in San Juan
County pristine, protected, and accessible (and not overrun and trampled by
tourists) by opposing NM designation."You are not making sense.
If the area is currently "protected" [from people] by ruggedness, then
how is NM designation going to simultaneously make it "overrun and trampled
by tourists) and "less accessible"? Or is it only the locals who get to
"access" land that belongs to every US citizen?Would you
approve of ditching the NM designation if there were an alternate designation
which specifically forbids mining, drilling, or selling off of the land?
Ms. Philemon, it seems to me that if you want to “gather herbs”, you
could plant some in your back yard. How many pounds of herbs do you use a year,
anyway? And please, spare us the crocodile tears about losing
physical contact with your ancestral lands. The land is still there, and will
still be open to hiking and primitive camping. You will still be welcome to go
backpacking there. You just won’t be able to bring your oil rig with you.
"they don't want to see the land ripped up by ruthless
exploiters"There is a false narrative going on here. Nobody
wants the land ripped up or exploited. The land is not under threat of
development. There are zero oil wells in the massive proposed 1.9 million acre
NM (the Bears Ears region is a minute fraction of this--another aspect of the
false narrative) and exactly one (small inactive) mine.The area is
naturally protected by ruggedness, remoteness, and relative obscurity (even the
tribal governments supporting the NM don't/didn't have a clue where
Bears Ears is). The truth is a NM designation is the greatest threat to the
environment and the public's access to it.I have no doubt that
every single person commenting on this thread has the region's best
interest at heart. Rather than bickering with one another we should be uniting
in opposition to a NM which would bring far more development and PEOPLE (the
biggest threat to the environment) to the region. Please help us keep the
special places in San Juan County pristine, protected, and accessible (and not
overrun and trampled by tourists) by opposing NM designation.
This is the diversity of Utah, look at all the R's in that picture.
Designation of Bears Ear as a national monument is the only sure way to preserve
it, not just for local native tribes but for all of us.
Take this land from you? You have to be kidding me! The land was already
yours, and mine, and the rest of Americans. And a monument will ensure that the
lands will continue to be yours, and mine, and the rest of Americans.
Otherwise, it will get sold off, fall into private hands, made off limits to all
of us, striped of its resources, and despoiled forever. Besides,
as previously pointed out, had Utahns built a relationship with the duly elected
President of the United States, instead of trying to constantly tear him down,
perhaps you would have some influence. Think about your appalling behavior over
the last 7 plus years. How's that working out for you?
The whole charade yesterday would have been hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Sad that Bishop wasted 4 years that Obama gave him to develop a local solution.
His strategy all along was to either run out the clock or get a bad bill thru
Congress. It appears he did neither.
"...this is a power play by radical environmentalist, using Native Tribes as
pawns..."It seems so odd to me that protecting areas of this
country from commercial development could ever be considered a "power
play." Is this "power play" by "radical environmentalists"
motivated by greed?Radical environmentalists need to be far more
admired in this country since you only get one change to prevent the despoiling
of the environment. In contrast, there are unlimited opportunities to admire the
greedy opportunists who use taxpayer dollars to get what they want so they can
fill their own bank accounts.
Hunting, firewood gathering, and herb collection? Seriously?I would
like to see some documentation as to just how much firewood and herbs that Ms.
Philemon and Mr. Singer personally collected in the last two years. I would
also like to see how much money they have collected, directly or indirectly,
from the extractive industries.
Uh huh . . . So you've got a few Uncle tom-toms who say they speak for all
native Americans, huh?Well, they don't.The vast
majority of native Americans are perfectly happy with national monument
designations, and they don't want to see the land ripped up by ruthless
After Rob Bishop's disingenuous PLI, he just about guaranteed the
monument's designation. Perhaps if the PLI wasn't designed for
extraction industry & developers, they wouldn't be pleading with the
Obama administration, which they spent 7.5 years denigrating.
"...said Susie Philemon. "President Obama, we the local native residents
of San Juan County, Utah, have managed to protect this enchanted place and will
continue to do so. "But they are not protecting it and cannot
protect it under the current regime. This press conference was based on
"Nearly, unanimous support." Another lie. No one in that area supports
this. Like was stated, this is a power play by radical environmentalist, using
Native Tribes as pawns to advance a take all policy promoted by this
administration. The deception, misrepresentations and flat out dishonest are
the hallmarks of both the Obama administration and the radical groups.
"support for a new monument in Bears Ears is nearly unanimous in Monument
Valley."This is a Lie! I know quite a few people in Monument
Valley and not a one of them want the monument.