Remember these articles from the Deseret NewsOct 1, 201 "I hate to use
the word devastating, but that's really what it would do to a small
community like ours," said Dean Cook, head of the Zion Canyon Visitors
Bureau and general manager of the Best Western Zion Park Inn.The effects of the
shutdown will start with employees at motels, restaurants and gift shops being
told there's not enough work for them, Cook said, and then trickle down to
restaurant suppliers and other business in the region.
We first read in the article of the San Juan County commissioners thanking
Secretary Zinke for listening to both sides. Then, we read how those in Utah
Dine Bikeyah are upset that Zinke did not take the time to listen to them. Which
is it? I'm thinking he didn't meet with Dine Bikeyah. He who has
your ear, has your heart. If those hosting him and leading the tour were
opponents of Bears Ears, we should not be surprised at the outcome.
"Heck, if were to take a modern day parallel, these people would be referred
to as illegal aliens on Mexican lands... if you accept that Mexico had he legal
rights to those lands." Sorry Mexico sold those rights to the land, at the
end of the Mexican American war.Sorry essence - "There will be
lawsuits to determine if one president can overturn decisions made by other
presidents using the Antiquities Act." It has been done by five previous
presidents. Isn't precedent such a pain. Lawsuits against any changes can
only be pursued by those that ignore facts.
@Commenter88 - Salt Lake City, Utah"I agree that 2018 cannot
come fast enough in peeling back the boundaries of the biggest federal seizures
of land in this state since the 19th century."The federal
government already owned the land. It was not seized by President Barack
Obama.Our current Governor is a feckless pawn of special interests.
Hatch, Bishop, and Chaffetz are all of the same ilk.
If the Trump crowd mess with the boundaries at this point, it is headed to
court, and they stand a good chance of losing. It's what Trump does,
ignore the law and lose in court. Here's the deal. The overwhelming
majority of Utahns like Bear Ears. We like wilderness designations. We believe
in preservation for future generations. We don't want special interests to
despoil the land for their own profit and benefit. And Utah's
Congressional delegation is completely out of step with the people of Utah.
"The fact is to manage 1.5 million effectively would be incredibly
challenging, and in it's wake would be a diluted version of protection that
would result in much more vandalism and less protection of the most sensitive
areas. By reducing the size the work becomes far more manageable. "This makes no sense. Before the monument the BLM managed these lands. As
enacted currently, the BLM manages these lands. Even when the monument gets
resized, all the lands, inside and outside the monument, will be managed by the
BLM. All that changes is the designation of the land - Park, Forest,
Monument.... but who does the managing, and what has to be managed
doesn't change one bit.This has been the problem with all this.
People like Hatch have created this false argument for whatever reasons. All
that has been being debated is what name goes on the door.... not who sits in
@Promotheus Platypus:"Ignore the people, sell to special interests,
the GOP in action."Special interests? Please be
specific.'There are a lot of historic civil war battlefields in
Viriginia which should be remembered. Any construction in Viriginia is
destroying a precious cultural resource and should be stopped.My
friend's 3rd great grandfather is buried in Holladay. Any development in
Holladay is desecrating a grave and should be banned.
The fact is to manage 1.5 million effectively would be incredibly challenging,
and in it's wake would be a diluted version of protection that would result
in much more vandalism and less protection of the most sensitive areas. By
reducing the size the work becomes far more manageable. I agree that
this decisions was never based on protection and preservation, but control.
I'm really happy that people who had the best interest of the land in mind
Rob Bishop recommended the size of the monument in the initial talks. It makes
no sense for them to suddenly cry it's too big because Barack Obama put his
name at the bottom. I don't see this as anything but a land grab for
special interest groups. Over 90% of the comments collected in the
feedback period were for the monument. The will of the people
doesn't matter. I think our state legislators only have one thing on their
mind: How they are going to pay for the next election. We live in an Oligarchy.
Keep the federal government out of States land rights. Keep the federal
government out of citizens lives as much as possible. Freedom is precious and
the federal government is the antithesis. Local citizens should
always determine the best use of their land, not some bureaucrat from the
federal government or united nations or council on foreign relations or european
union or trilateral commission. When are people going to wake up??
This is common sense. Zinke used a balanced and well thought out approach.
Environmental groups in California should not dictate what happens in Utah. The
people closest to the area and actual stake holders should have the most input.
To the "lost in DC - West Jordan, UT" person: It is what it is and even
if you and the totality of all of the citizens of Utah who make up less than 1%
of the total population of the United States think different than the law, you
"When 67% of VA is "owned" by the feds, and as a condition of
statehood you were forced to abandon any claim, come talk to us."Lost - can you show me where, anywhere, that those that "settled" in
those lands had any ownership rights to that land, and by what means they were
forced to give up their ownership? To abandon a right to something, you first
have to have the right in the first place. Last I checked, I didn't see
any land grants, papers or ownership, or any other legal document that gave the
early settles "rights" to the lands they were setting up shop on. Heck, if were to take a modern day parallel, these people would be
referred to as illegal aliens on Mexican lands... if you accept that Mexico had
he legal rights to those lands.You can't loose something you
never had. I say this to not demean those people, my family was one of those
settles. But simply to put some factual context around it. Those lands never
were "Utahs" lands.... they were not taken from the state. That is
the BIG difference between your Utah and Virginia claims.
Do San Juan residents own the land in question? If not, they shouldn't have
any more say than any other citizen.
This is not the end. There will be lawsuits to determine if one president can
overturn decisions made by other presidents using the Antiquities Act. Congress
should have run new legislation to change the act if they're not satisfied
with the existing one.
"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who caught the ear of Trump in jockeying for
action on Bears Ears, said the preliminary recommendations are exactly the right
thing to do for a state already saddled with too much federal control."Orin.... where did you read any of this turns any control of these lands
to anyone over in the state? The ruling does sound somewhat reasonable, but
boy, Orin is reading way more into this than any actual statements made. I am
impressed with the measured response here by Zenke, and really disappointed by
Hatch's pandering response. He seems to have totally abdicated everything
to partisanship at its lowest. What a way to end a career.... so sad.
When this is all done, all but the most intransigent partisans will recognize
that all stakeholders were heard and the process has been fair. The final
solution looks like it will enjoy broad support from many different interests.
Robin138When 67% of VA is "owned" by the feds, and as a condition
of statehood you were forced to abandon any claim, come talk to us.Utahgirlyou are correct. If BO were the son of a Juab county rancher,
(or San Juan county, where the monument is) no one would give two hoots (or even
one) about the size of bears ears - because it would NOT BE a monument.Is that the best you liberals can do, is cry "BO haters" when it his
policies we decry? are you still trying to play the race card?
What's really sad are those who are defending this reversal, are using
lies, and misinformation over and over and when presented with the facts they
just ignore them and keep right on presenting more right wing nonsense. The GOP has definitely taken Trump's lead with the just say
anything, alternate reality leadership.Conservatives, conserving
bank accounts of the wealthy, and very little else.Then again the
Donald's ignorance of the law, the constitution, and the government in
general will not help him to overturn this, before the his little cabal falls
The land belongs to all of the 321.4 or so million citizens of America. Not to
the 15,000 residents of San Juan County or the 2.996 million citizens of Utah.
Sigh of relief. Activists can now return to their normal posture of hating and
suing everyone else. Lawyers will prosper. Situation normal.
It's been said before but if Obama were the son of a Juab County rancher,
no one would give two hoots about Bears Ears or how big it is.
Oh this is truly shocking - I would have never guessed this recommendation in a
million years. Maybe since the glaciers are shrinking in Glacier National in
Zinke's home state of Montana - the size of Glacier should shrink
correspondingly. I'd like to see Mr Zinke float that idea in Great Falls,
Billings and Missoula.
@commentator88. Unfortunately you are so misinformed regarding school trust
within GSENM & Bears Ears. With GSENM, the school trust lands were locked up
within the BLM land pre Monument. Once it became a Monument, the Feds purchased
the school trust lands contained within the monument for $300MM! The largest
influx of dollars ever to the Trust. The same will happen with Bears Ears!
@cjb, I agree that multi-use is important. But monument status & protection
is not incompatible with multi-use. Many monuments have been managed as
multi-use for nearly 25 years now.Field & Stream has more info
about that than I can personally provide, "A Sportsman’s View of
National Monuments" (https://goo.gl/8ouA9y). Whether you agree with them or
not, if multi-use is important to you I think it's worth a read. They
provide some good details.
Interesting how some will find any reason to take offense. Hatch did not say, as
Willie Greyeyes claimed, that native people do not have a will of their own or
do not understand the special and sacred landscapes of bears ears. Hatch said
they did not understand the restrictions that accompanied monument
designation.PlatypusYep, ignore all the Navajo and Hopi who
did not agree with the designation. Name as large an area as possible to stick
it to Utah, who never supported you, as BO did.Twin lightsIt’s not “protect”, it’s “lock up”
Looks like the adults are in charge now.Good Work.Now let's see
it come to fruition.Winners...The American people.Losers...Clinton, Obama, Bobby Redford, Norma Matheson and Ted Wilson.
The NM Order, post 96, over 100K acres "or were expanded without adequate
public outreach." Did Trump initiate that order - NO - it was Orrin Hatch
and Rob Bishop along with others that moved the needle. San Juan County
officials twice, seeking full undoing of the Monument and using public funds to
fly, transport, lodge and dine in Washington.The Antiquities Act of
1906 - authorizes a president to designate monuments. But it provides NO
authority to undo or modify, as that power belongs soley to Congress.In the 5 page letter, by Zinke, dated June 10, 2017 he makes NO mention of the
preference of National Park officials or BLM officers in Grand and San Juan
Counties, and on the cc at the end of the letter there is NO copy going to Park
or BLM officials?The draft of the letter was crafted when Hatch in
SLC, Herbert in Blanding and Stewart and Noel in Kanab were 'carefully"
holding the hand of Zinke. Who knows what the future holds on this
matter? The five Native American tribes that initiated the Monument effort, will
now get to decide if litigation is their next or near act. And or, groups will
lodge complaint seeking dissolution or to leave the Monument as is.
@stevo123:1) The federal government does not own the state trust
lands within the monument (nor the ones that were once in Grand Staircase).
They've been seized outright and the resulting loss in educational funds
disproportionately affect rural schoolchildren.2) The monument is
also a land use seizure. Utah has the highest rate of the strictest land use
restrictions on its public lands. This is mostly due to the prevailing idea by
out-of-state special interests and expensive outdoor gear retailers that Utahns
will destroy their own land more so than any other state, even in the West. (I
tend to suspect it is a thinly-veiled bigotry of Mormons).
Federal seizures of land? That's quite a feat considering all of the land
was already federal land to being with. I am constantly baffled by those who
oppose our federally owned public lands because they feel they are locked up and
they can't do whatever they want on them. You have two alternatives.Private land where you can't so much as step foot on the land
without permission.Your other option is state controlled lands, and
considering the fact that Utah has sold 54% of it's public lands since it
became a state, and Idaho has sold 41% of it's state lands since it became
a state, I would say anyone who cares about public lands access, outdoor
recreation, and hunting and sportsman activities should be thrilled that the
Federal government owns so much of the land in our state.
I'm very proud of the way our Governor and Hatch have stood up to this
egregious violation of public lands use. I'm not always proud of them, but
they have stood for Utahns who want to use this land in reasonable ways, such as
modest geological rock specimen collection, access for wounded veterans, and
simple fire usage and firewood collection for Utah Navajos.I'm
also glad that Utahns are fighting for its preservation with much better
management than the NPS. For those who've studied the history of federal
monument and park designations, the record for management and preservation is
abysmal. Benally is right in her characterization that this was
engineered by out-of-state special interest groups at the expense of Utah
Navajos, rural schoolchildren (through foreclosure of state trust lands), and
humble, modest Utahns simply enjoying their own land.Glad to see
that they are taking this to a Republican Congress who has the authority and
precedent to legislate on the monument designations (as they did in Wyoming).
1.35 million acres is not a monument. It is a de facto National Park. National
Parks have been created by legislation (requiring Congress and the President to
agree). The President alone (any President) should not be able to protect this
much land with the stroke of a pen.I have zero problem with Bears
Ears being protected or with the ultimate size of the area if that is what is
warranted. But the President being able to do this on his own is simply not
right. It is too much power vested in the Executive Branch. Period.
@ commenter88, How do the feds seize lands it already owns?
Sounds to me as if a good decision has been made by Zinke.
@UtahTroutStalker:The overwhelming majority of Utahns are opposed to
the way the monument was created, the way it marginalized Utah Navajos, and the
monument itself. The DesNews itself conducted a poll that supports this. I agree that 2018 cannot come fast enough in peeling back the boundaries
of the biggest federal seizures of land in this state since the 19th century.
If there is one thing Trump has always been good at, before or during his
presidency, is losing court battles. The Monument is not going away without an
act of Congress and that is not going to happen.
Reduction of the Bears Ears National Monument does not solve the bigger problem
of abuse of the Antiquities Act. The entire process in which the Bears Ears was
designated a monument using the Antiquities Act was despicable!
Herbert said, "This decision ignores the will of the majority of Utahns. It
disregards the desire of Native American groups who count these lands as their
heritage to co-manage this culturally important area"This is
simply not true. The majority of Utahns support the Bears Ears National
Monument designation.2018 cannot come fast enough.
The monument boundaries are just fine. In fact the size is smaller than the
original proposal and the same size as what Rob Bishop recommended with his
so-called proposal. The good news is, any attempt to shrink the monument
will be contested in court and eventually thrown out so the monument will stay
for those of us who understand this is for us and for future generations. Why do the opponents of the monument ignore that 96% of those who responded
during the comment period were in favor of the monument? Also, literally ever
business owner in Boulder & Escalante favor the GSENM. They favor it for a
"During the protracted outreach for the massive land bill called the Public
Lands Initiative, Native American tribes cut off talks with Rep. Rob Bishop,
R-Utah and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, citing concerns they said were ignored
or marginalized."Just like these elected officials do to their
own constituents, vote these self serving freeloaders out!
Ignore the people, sell to special interests, the GOP in action.When
will the GOP do anything bu try and undo all Obama's work?Sad little
men in the GOP can't lead, can't listen, can preserve or protect.
Probably a good idea to reduce the size. Yes some of this land needs
protection, but that needs to be balanced with the need for roads and other