Anti-monument rally: 'Please don't take this land from us'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 1:32 p.m.

    Some people commenting here dont seem to understand that Bears Ears is already federal property, nobodys land is getting taken from them.

  • Granny Saint George, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 1:09 p.m.

    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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 22, 2016 12:41 p.m.

    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!

  • No Monument Monticello, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 12:39 p.m.

    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!

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Lew Elton Jeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 10:49 a.m.

    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 lot!

  • Silver Stingray St. George, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 10:11 a.m.

    Please don't take this land from us indeed. Create the monument to protect it for ALL of us.

  • No Monument Monticello, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 10:08 a.m.

    @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!

  • Something to think about Ogden, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 10:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 10:01 a.m.

    @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."

  • Utah_Happyman Orem, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 9:44 a.m.

    BENM please President Obama...The Utah six do not represent Utah, only the God of Greed and Plunder...

  • OneAmerican Idaho Falls, ID
    Sept. 22, 2016 9:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Sept. 22, 2016 9:00 a.m.

    @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?

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Sept. 22, 2016 8:49 a.m.

    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.

  • No Monument Monticello, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 8:35 a.m.

    "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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 8:34 a.m.

    This is the diversity of Utah, look at all the R's in that picture.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Sept. 22, 2016 8:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 8:15 a.m.

    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?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 8:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Publius nota bene Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 7:22 a.m.

    "...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.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Sept. 22, 2016 6:32 a.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Sept. 22, 2016 5:59 a.m.

    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 exploiters.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 4:37 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2016 12:07 a.m.

    "...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 falsehoods.

  • Sanefan Wellsville, UT
    Sept. 21, 2016 11:06 p.m.

    "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.

  • Mom and Love It San Juan, UT
    Sept. 21, 2016 10:41 p.m.

    "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.