SUWA campaigns for Bears Ears with full page national ads

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 19, 2017 3:30 p.m.

    RBC - Cody, WY

    Article 1 section 8 paragraph 17 of the US Constitution specifically states the conditions under which the US Government may own land in the states.

    "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings..."

    The Federal Government is prohibited from owning land in any state if the state legislature has not agreed to sell it. They used to obey this; however, once the country expanded to the far west, they forgot they had to obey the constitution.

    Bears Ears is not a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard or any other needful building. The state did not sell it. The Feds can't own it.

  • rmwarnick Draper, UT
    May 19, 2017 11:02 a.m.

    The Secretary of the Interior can issue a report, but only Congress can modify or revoke a national monument (Sec. 204, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976)

  • Giles Goat-Boy Monticello, UT
    May 19, 2017 10:59 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    Yeah, SUWA advertising in WaPo and the NYT that monuments are important because they safeguard grazing "forever" is funny. Everyone knows SUWA hates cows about as much as they hate the rednecks who ranch them. It's clear you're being disingenuous, but if you really need a specific example: one of the specific planks in their demagoguery of the PLI was that it "prioritize(d) and entrench(ed) livestock grazing."

    I'm curious about your statement about Bishop. What "special interests" would benefit from a rescission of BENM? Please be specific.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 19, 2017 9:50 a.m.

    Giles Goat-Boy claims: "SUWA sticking up for grazing? That's hilarious."

    Is it?

    By the way, Staircase Escalante has more grazing permits available then are being requested.
    Local businesses in Kanab, love the added income from the monument near them and have formed a group that supports such.

    Sad that an outside group has to protect us from our greedy representatives who couldn't have cared less about Bears Ears and the surrounding communities until Obama suggested protection.

    Bishop sure didn't represent anybody but special interests.

  • Giles Goat-Boy Monticello, UT
    May 19, 2017 9:37 a.m.

    SUWA sticking up for grazing? That's hilarious. Just how dumb is the audience in Greenwich Village or Georgetown who will read these ads?

    I also love the persistent conflation of virtue-signaling with actual conservation. Looting was already illegal and there was/is no threat of mineral or oil development. Monument designation literally does not one actual thing for conservation.

  • DonO Draper, UT
    May 19, 2017 9:25 a.m.

    The ads kind of show where the battle lines are drawn, don't they? Proponents of keeping the monuments are appealing to the east coast liberal bastions for support. It would be interesting to know how many members of that audience even know where the monuments are, let alone having actually set foot on them.

  • plan-ahead Farmington, UT
    May 19, 2017 8:45 a.m.

    Putting politics aside, Bears Ears is a fantastic idea. When you live and die by political ideology (AKA letting other people do your thinking for you), you do what you're told and view the protection of cultural heritage sites and unique-to-the-world landscapes through the narrow-minded scope of federal oversight.

    What do we lose with Bears Ears? The ability to loot and destroy cultural heritage sites, use motorized vehicles to drive over whatever we want, and allow big business to sweep in, destroy the landscape for mineral extraction or develop the land like it was anywhere else.

    What do we gain? Protection of cultural sites and continued public access to public lands in a way that will allow our grandchildren to appreciate them as well.

    Unless you're in bed with big business, subscribe to political ideology over common sense, or are interested in the destruction of unique landscapes, I don't why you'd be opposed to Bears Ears.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2017 8:11 a.m.

    Interesting OP-ED in the print version this morning from a Navajo woman who says the designation will damage the Dine' way of life

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 19, 2017 7:26 a.m.

    What effect would a full page add have? None. Circulation is way down on newspapers and no one reads the ads anyway.

  • IceCreamGhost Sandy, UT
    May 19, 2017 12:25 a.m.

    The land belongs to all Americans and I fully support the Bears Ears National Monument with strict protections so we can preserve it for our children.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 18, 2017 9:34 p.m.

    Readers of the New York Times and Washington Post are used to being fed stuff that is factually incorrect, so their readers will fall for the SUWA claims.

    This is as much about opposing Trump and supporting Obama as it is about ensuring that Monuments are the minimum size necessary.

    They really need more wilderness areas closer to NYC and DC, not thousands of miles away in a location that most advocates for BENM could not find on a map if they had to.

  • Canyonlover Blanding, UT
    May 18, 2017 8:48 p.m.

    RBC- you may want to remember that while you think ee are great, I live here and i have never wanted to live in Moab, Springdale or Jackson Hole. You are right in that these lands belong to all Americans and no matter what happens that fact will not change. It was, is and will be public. You could have visited before, now or after. See Ya when you come

  • Blue Collar Huntington, UT
    May 18, 2017 7:01 p.m.

    Suwa, are you getting nervous?

  • RBC Cody, WY
    May 18, 2017 6:37 p.m.

    @ The Rock,
    The problem with your suggestion is that the land doesn't belong to the people of Utah. If it was state land that your idea would be fine. But it's public land, which means it belongs to every single citizen of the U.S.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    May 18, 2017 6:27 p.m.

    BENM. Is and will make a truly great National Monument.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 18, 2017 6:04 p.m.

    Put it to a vote of the people of Utah and be done with it.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 18, 2017 5:44 p.m.

    Thanks you SUWA! Time to send another donation.