Zinke: Bears Ears monument boundaries need to change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    July 29, 2017 12:53 p.m.

    Remember these articles from the Deseret News
    Oct 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.

  • John Jackson Sandy, UT
    June 13, 2017 6:20 p.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 13, 2017 9:51 a.m.

    "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.

  • UtahTroutStalker Draper, UT
    June 13, 2017 8:27 a.m.

    @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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 13, 2017 8:01 a.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 13, 2017 7:06 a.m.

    "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 the office.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 13, 2017 3:47 a.m.

    @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.

  • jasonlivy Orem, UT
    June 13, 2017 12:04 a.m.

    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 prevailed.

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2017 11:54 p.m.

    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.

  • SIMPLICITY Denver, CO
    June 12, 2017 11:12 p.m.

    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??

  • New to Utah Provo, UT
    June 12, 2017 10:19 p.m.

    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.

  • robin138 springfield, VA
    June 12, 2017 9:47 p.m.

    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 are wrong.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 12, 2017 7:14 p.m.

    "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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2017 5:46 p.m.

    Do San Juan residents own the land in question? If not, they shouldn't have any more say than any other citizen.

  • essence Ivins, UT
    June 12, 2017 5:34 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 12, 2017 5:24 p.m.

    "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.

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    June 12, 2017 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 12, 2017 4:47 p.m.

    Robin138
    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.

    Utahgirl
    you 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?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 12, 2017 4:44 p.m.

    Robin138
    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.

    Utahgirl
    you 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?

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    June 12, 2017 4:31 p.m.

    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 apart.

  • robin138 springfield, VA
    June 12, 2017 4:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    June 12, 2017 3:04 p.m.

    Sigh of relief. Activists can now return to their normal posture of hating and suing everyone else. Lawyers will prosper. Situation normal.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 12, 2017 2:55 p.m.

    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.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    June 12, 2017 2:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Hayduke lives Park City, UT
    June 12, 2017 2:33 p.m.

    @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!

  • pshyvers Fort Collins, CO
    June 12, 2017 1:48 p.m.

    @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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 12, 2017 1:37 p.m.

    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.

    Platypus
    Yep, 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 lights
    It’s not “protect”, it’s “lock up”

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2017 1:36 p.m.

    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.

  • wasatchcascade ,
    June 12, 2017 1:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 12, 2017 1:26 p.m.

    @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).

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    June 12, 2017 1:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 12, 2017 1:04 p.m.

    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).

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 12, 2017 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    June 12, 2017 12:59 p.m.

    @ commenter88, How do the feds seize lands it already owns?

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    June 12, 2017 12:51 p.m.

    Sounds to me as if a good decision has been made by Zinke.

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 12, 2017 12:50 p.m.

    @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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Kimmihend Monticello, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:37 p.m.

    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! #RescindBearsEars

  • UtahTroutStalker Draper, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:31 p.m.

    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 rea$on.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:29 p.m.

    "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!

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 12, 2017 12:23 p.m.

    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 multi use.