To all those claiming that American citizens just lost this land. Exactly where
is it going? It's still going to be federally owned and managed by the BLM
as it was before Clinton and Obama locked it away from multiple uses.It's not going to be strip-mined, surface mining is not really that
effective here in Utah. The coal is too deep, so any mines will have a very
small surface footprint. Drilling in the region has not been successful. So
exactly where is this land going?Nowhere, it will remain, exactly as
it has been, under federal control, available to managed mixed use. Your fear mongering is without merit and baseless. We don't have to lock
up land to protect it. If it's still scenic today then we've been
doing just fine managing it without making it a tourist destination. 160,000 or
zero acres it would still remain controlled and managed by the Feds. Just not
locked away, or subject to hoards of tourists.
I'm not an 'extreme enviro', whatever that is...I'm a
lifelong GOP voter who's tired of my brothers who think they have to go
lockstep with the loony bird in the WH. Trump says he's
entitled to grope women...it's OKTrump loves Russia...so do we. Trump embraces the white supremacists...so do weTrump says we need to
drill and dig more...so do weIf you really care about developing
rural America, don't support a return to the 1800's drill, dig and
mine mentality. We need to preserve our land, build renewable energy and support
tech jobs that pull kids through college and into a better lifestyle. Let's
support an America that is great because it's competitive and has a bright
future for all counties.
@HSTucker - The Educator: "More catering to white supremacists
and big gas lobbyists?""What is with all the race-baiting on
the left?"Possibly those on the left will be entitled to ask the
identical line of questioning? If I may..."What is with all the"
deflection, enabling, excuses for bigotry, misogyny and xenophobia on the right?
Not to mention a complete and utter lack of integrity for supporting all the
above! This faction dares to continue offering unwavering support to their
supreme leader while simultaneously pulling the "family values" card.
Again as poster "The Educator" has suggested numerous times..."Get
educated"! Thank you.
rmwarnick of Draper said, "Once a monument is proclaimed, it
takes an act of Congress to modify or revoke. That's the law (Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976)."Sorry, rmwarnick, but Pres.
Obama invoked only the Antiquities Act to create Bears Ears, not the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. That law only described how to manage
National Monuments, among other things, it didn't supersede the Antiquities
Act.However, it is time to either sunset the Antiquities Act or
circumscribe the exuberance of future presidents by setting hard, inviolable
limits to the size of additional monuments.
An EO by Trump will be jammed and die in the federal courts.Congress
will need to pass appropriate legislation to accommodate Zinke's
recommendation, and the GOP will not have a majority in either chamber to pass
such legislation to pass it on Republican lines.The recommendation
is dead on arrival.
Beware Enviro-Zealotry!Today's environmentalist want the right
to act arbitrarily, irrationally, and dictatorially, when and where it suits
them.The Antiquities Act was used quite appropriately to create the
small Dinosaur Monument less than 20 years after Utah gained statehood; [that
was even before there were any roads in Utah]. At the time, that monument was
unique in all the world in its concentration of fossils. That was a perfect
example of the intent of a law being perfectly congruent with its timely
application and use.But, here we are More Than a Century Later and
that same law was grossly and misappropriately abused by Obama to create a
massive monument to his own legacy on land that is mostly "Plain
Vanilla" western land. This was a prime example of a law stretched far
beyond its time and justification.Yet, the Enviro-Zalots are
screaming as if the time, place, and circumstances of the creation of Bears Ears
was a perfect match. Such extreme emotionalism and irrationality is
a positive danger to America and the world at a time when so many great
problems demand the best critical thinking we can bring to bear to solve titanic
If you want to preserve public lands without attracting more visitors,
wilderness designation is the answer. But Utah politicians typically reject
meaningful wilderness proposals. So the only option for conservationists and
native Americans was to advocate for Bears Ears National Monument.The Obama administration cut the size of the proposed monument by 30 percent,
from 1.9 million acres to 1.35 million acres (roughly the same boundaries as the
national conservation areas in the failed Public Lands Initiative bill). Once a monument is proclaimed, it takes an act of Congress to modify or
revoke. That's the law (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976).
The question is, will Trump commit an impeachable offense by defying the law?
National monuments are a lot more popular than he is (34 percent in the Gallup
robin138 - springfield, VA said,"All of the land is owned by all
325 million of us Americans." Right, robin138.Since
America owns 2/3rds of Utah, Fair-sized states like Virginia own thousands of
acres here.And how much of Virginia does Utah own? Probably not
enough to build a Burger King on.You easterners simply can;t wrap
your brain around the fact that over a century after becoming a state, Utahns
want a little simple equity, visa-vis distant federal ownership.Utah
belongs to the nation, but not vice-versa....[At least East of the Rocky
The problem is that the land is Already protected. In the eyes of the Dept
of Interior, they understand that. Thanks to President Clinton's
executive act pertaining to the Government to Government Tribal Consultation Act
of 2000, anyone in their right mind who reads the Bears Ears Monument
Proclamation can see its scripted nearly verbatimly to the Consultation act, so
why the need for a monument at all if the federal protections are already in
place?REDUCE and RESCIND BEARS EARS NATIONAL MONUMENT
I lived in the area for a little over 8 years prior to when Moab was turned into
a major tourist destination . I did work in the extraction industry spending a
lot of time during environmental control work. Visiting Moab for the first time
in 10 years, now a town in disrepair, where private property are full rusty
old cars with multiple trailers on small plots. I am not against trailers,
having lived in them during my career. The industrial based jobs 20 years ago
were paying $12 to $20 per hour , with benefits, were replaced by service
jobs,paying $10 to $12. It is no wonder why people cannot afford the 1/2 acre
plot with a nice double wide and maintain their property, common 20 years
ago. While extraction jobs lead to boom and bust cycles, they also support
the building of airports, hospitals , roads and other infrastructures. We
should not artificially drive out industrial work thinking that service work
will off set the quality of life style.I was working at the Capital
shortly after the Escalante monument process and have first hand information
about that monument process. I visit Excalante 1 ir 2 times per year and see no
All of the land is owned by all 325 million of us Americans. It is not owned by
Utah. Western extraction industries do not have any entitlement to the land.
If Trump and Zinke do this, it will be cooperate welfare of the highest order.
I read an article that suggests Bears Ears has, "some of the most stunning
landscapes that America has to offer," and contrast that with the comments
in this thread suggesting the landscape is nondescript and commonplace. Either
way, it probably doesn't matter. The Antiquities Act says nothing of
protecting scenic sites and beautiful landscape. Instead, it speaks of
protecting historic, prehistoric, and scientific-valuable lands. On that count,
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante definitely qualify.
Th Secretary has done a great job balancing the need to develop natural
resources with the need to preserve sacred sites. Special interest groups have
locked up vast amount of Public acreage in Utah for far to long. It is
refreshing to see a President who actually wants to address all sides of an
RB, I'll take that bet.
Kudos to Amy Joi for another even handed article on this subject. My only
suggestion is adding a map with the Paved Roads around the Proposed Monument,
The one that the "Old Gray Lady" put in their article doesn't
show the paved roads let alone the RS2477 roads.
I bet you it's reduced by 160,000.
Doesn't really matter since the land was federally owned before anyway.
The sooner we can strip mine and frack that whole area the better.
I wish those who so vehemently decry the idea of the Secretary of the Interior
properly applying what the Antiquities Act actually says would explain what it
is that "greedy politicians" gain by enforcement of this law and setting
aside only what the act actually authorizes. I fully support the application of
the Antiquities Act as it was written and intended, to preserve the scenery and
historic sites of our nation, from prehistoric times down to more recent
history, but lets be reasonable, folks. Also, lets please keep hatred and
vitriol to ourselves.
YES!It was created illegally as part of a political agenda of a corrupt
administration against the wishes of the majority of the citizens of the state
of Utah.Same scenario as grand staircase Escalante.Hopefully that
will be drastically reduced as well.
@ David M - Metairie"1,350,000/160,000=8.4 not 12"And 8.4 goes into 100, 11.905 times. So yes, 160,000 acres is one
twelfth of the current designation.
Let's see:- The inter-tribal coalition proposed 1.9 million
acres.- Obama designated 1.35 million acres- Trump will
give them .16 million acres.Does this sound like a
"compromise" to anyone? The coalition member's term
"insult" is understandable.Trump definitely threw his base
in Utah plenty of red meat on this one, the same people who act perplexed - and
even angry - at how Utah is quickly getting a national reputation for being
hostile to environmental / conservation actions, such as with the Outdoor
Retailers bailing out to go to Denver. @David - please, for your own
sake, do an Internet search about how much input Obama got from locals, how he
said he preferred a legislative approach and waited for Bishop's Public
Lands Initiative - which never happened - and how long Bears Ears National
Monument was discussed.
Sanity returns. There was (is) no justification for over a million acres for
this monument. I have been there, other than the native American stuff, there
isn't much worth looking at...or to protect. Environmentalists have never
been honest or fair in their dealings with this country; they can't get
elected because they are so far out to the left that no one would vote for them,
so they raise money, campaign, lobby, and litigate. Trump should be cheered and
praised for this action.
It shouldn't be one acre. Be grateful you get 160,000 acres. That's a
huge swath of land.
Not expecting much to happen, since Trump has failed to accomplish anything, and
will continue in his inept vacuum of leadership.Zinke can crank out
this recommendation in a few weeks but Bishop couldn't do it in a few
years, the GOP is void of leadership, right down to the local do nothings.Bet Bishop made bank off donations from the extraction industries while
dragging his feet, which is what is most important to the GOP. Why else would
Trump still be campaigning instead of working?
For all those who say they want to take away beautiful lands, you shouldn't
worry , a lot of that 1.5 million acres looks a lot like many areas in Wyo.,Nev.
Colo. Montana. Just get in you car and drive to those areas and and enjoy the
beautiful lands and then you can visit the 160,000 acres of Bears Ears. No one
is taking anything from you.------ I'm not buying the Liberal and narrow
minded view of a few who think they own the land that is in dispute yet cry over
any decision with dirty air ,dirty water, and granny over the cliff doomsday if
their views are not sacred to everyone else.
both this and the Grand Staircase monuments should have never happened in the
first place, at least, not like they did. Satisfying the interests of only one
special interest group at the exclusion of all other interests is extremely
"...unnamed congressional aides..." Sounds like a leaker to me. I guess
someone feels like it is his/her duty to speak anonymously because he/she
disagrees with the legal and proper function of a federal government position.
GoodBarry wanted the whole state
If this article is correct, then it seems to me that it is a great example of
using the Antiquities Act as it was intended and within a reasonable
interpretation of the law. Unlike Obama's totally unreasonable,
indefensible use of the Act to lock up 1,350,000 acres of land. I don't
say it often, but "Good work, Trump!"
Just what the world needs.... less natural beauty for everyone to enjoy. This
is an incredible loss for Utah at the hands of our elected leaders.
I do not know how large the monument should be, but I would say it has nothing
to do with how large Zions is, or whether all five national parks in Utah could
fit into it. Consider Bears Ears on its own merits. Following the Antiquities
Act, it would seem you rope off all the archaeological sites, and keep it to the
smallest size that does cover all the sites. Now, that might remain a large
tract of land, as Bears Ears is said to contain perhaps the highest
concentration of archaeological sites in North America, and perhaps the world.
As such, if any land in appropriate to be protected by the Antiquities Act, it
is Bears Ears. And, if any monument is to be vast and sprawling, it is Bears
Ears (supposing the artifacts are scattered throughout the full of the
"There's no other information to indicate the relevance and rationale
behind a reduction to 160,000 acres, which is about a one-twelfth of what
President Barack Obama set aside last December."1,350,000/160,000=8.4 not 12
I'm not sure I understand the argument that by reversing this everyone will
be drinking dirty water and breathing dirty air in southern Utah. It's a
pristine area at this time, right? This national monument designation will bring
hordes of people to the area with their polluting cars and their need to use the
restroom. I don't know what is best for this area, but my common sense
tells me that declaring this whole area a national monument brings pollution and
wear and tear to an area, not protect it. Could someone knowledgeable explain
the folly in my thinking?
Definitely lawsuit material.
Wow, that was quite the over-reaction by the tribal councilman in the article.
The Navajo nation is already the size of West Virginia. They don't need to
rope off another area almost twice the size of Rhode Island. We can all work
together to come up with sustainable plans for the land in southern Utah.
Unilateral land grabs are not working together.
That's sounds more like it. Protect the land but don't hoard the land.
I do not find it acceptable that announcements of this nature are continually
being "leaked" by "anonymous" through the New York Times, or
that local news sources are so eager to jump in and repeat the unsubstantiated
rumors, as if this was an honest or honorable way to discuss news. Let us wait
for the news to come from official sources in the White House, where the
decisions will be made. I strongly suspect that such media sources in New York
City have only the vaguest idea of what the implications for western lands,
beyond partisan political considerations. It would have been better all around
for local interests to have a greater voice in these deliberations. In fact, I
would be willing to venture that few of the journalists telling about it have
ever spent any substantial time working or living in the area of these
I have no idea how much of the Bears Ears should be protected. Only that 1.35
million acres is not a monument, it's a huge national park. Such things
should go through Congress.As to whether the designation can be
undone. What if a President in failing health decided to declare an entire
State to be a monument? Unlikely to be sure, but what if? Could that not be
undone by his successor?Whatever else, this should serve notice that
monuments should be small in scale and the minimum required to save it from an
impending threat. Designations beyond that should go through the full
legislative process.This is not to repudiate what President Obama
did (I think in good faith) or what President Trump will do. Simply that a one
person, stroke of the pen process needs to be very limited in scope and/or time.
No matter who that person is.
Personally, I was pushing and hoping the Secretary would have recommended to
Rescind the Monument completely. Oh well, less than 160,000 acres seem somewhat
@Barb Wire: "These people will be breathing polluted air, drinking polluted
water because they don't necessarily like Trump but they despise a
intelligent black man who did have their best interests in mind."Playing the race card again? Can't we all just get along?
While all historical reductions in Monument boundaries have been minimal and
never challenged in court this certainly would be. I can only imagine the
conservative Supreme Court looking at the attorneys for Trump asking him on what
legal grounds have you made these changes? What law gave you such power? Go
ahead and do it President Trump, your track record in court is certainly
nothing to fear. Bears Ears will stay because Congress gave the President such
authority and it's never been rescinded, no matter what the size of a
Bears ears definitely does not need to be twice the size of all 5 of Utah's
national parks combined. A vast reduction in size is fitting and appropriate.
A 160,000 acres is about 250 square miles or a strip of land 10 miles wide in
SL/Provo going down to Provo. Seems like more than enough. Remember that the
extreme eviro's will also start to talk about scenic vistas, water shed
protection and other areas that are around any monument which could expand the
current 1.9 million or the 160 k. Having lived in this area for 8 years I saw no
effort by the Native Americans to post signs improve these sites for their
children or others . While most people are caring about their concerns their
lack of effort to improve the area speaks volumes.It is hard to said
but, we know about as much about the previous Native Americans as we
ever will, since they did not have a written record, only the pictures on rock
surfaces and buildings that remain.
Skeptic,You wrote "The American people across the the nation
just got sold out to a bunch of greedy politicians. "I suspect
the same could be said for the Obama administration for creating this monument,
and many others like it. They are doing this to create a legacy and to protect
their far left base of supporters and voters. The right way to
create a monument would involve voter input from the affected state and local
area. It seems distant and overbearing for a distant politician from hundreds,
even thousands of miles away, to create a monument without getting input from
I actually think that Southern Utah would be a great location for a nuclear
waste site. Think of all the great jobs for those poor, starving,
federal-government-afflicted residents. You wouldn't have to worry about
all those "lefty hikers" coming in to spend money. The Bundy Klan could
graze their scrawny cattle rent free. Sounds like a win-win.
Well let's see...Trump has tried to eliminate Obama's environmental
protections for the sake of $$, he is trying to take away beautiful lands from
the public for the sake of $$. Seems to me Trump has conned alot of people into
thinking he has their best interests in mind. These people will be breathing
polluted air, drinking polluted water because they don't necessarily like
Trump but they despise a intelligent black man who did have their best interests
Considering that Zion National Park is a little less than 150,000 acres (229
square miles), I should think that 160,000 acres for a mere monument is more
than sufficient. Let's drop Grand Staircase / Escalante National Monument
down to about the same size.Remember, had GSE been made a national
monument before the Hogs Back road was built, it would be all but impossible for
most people to ever see much of what makes the area so spectacular. Having the land under federal control was supposed to be sufficient to protect
the land. And until the 1970s it did. Vast stretches of land in the West were
routinely used by multiple entities in multiple ways. Cattle grazed, hunters had
access, hikers and motorized users both had access, lumber was harvested in a
sustainable manner that contributed to the health of forests, minerals were
extracted, and energy resources developed.Then the feds started
locking us out. Whole forests burn when beetles are not controlled and deadwood
not removed. Ranchers are shut down. Energy development is stopped.Respect all public access, not just the radical lefty professional hikers.
I hope this is the case, if so it is excellent news. These types of unilateral
actions that ruin economies, ruin, jobs, and ruin lives need to be reigned in.
Everyone, including the monument backers, knows this was done by Obama for
purely partisan reasons and that he had no concern whatsoever about the local
economy or frankly the monument itself. He did it as a political favor for his
leftwing supporters and such action should be confronted and changed.
The American people across the the nation just got sold out to a bunch of greedy
politicians. Americas children will be paying the price for generations for the
loss of preserving natures beauty and man's history for all to enjoy now
and future generations.
The only problem with the 160,000 acres is that it is 159,000 acres too many.
Seems about right. A very thoughtful, scientific, and legal approach is
refreshing. Nice job Sec. Zinke.