Letter: Shrinking Bears Ears is undemocratic

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 13, 2017 8:28 a.m.

    @LOU Montana
    RE: "Behind every Trump bill is someone who will make money"...
    Why are Democrats so against people making money?

    You like to make money... don't you?

    You like having a job... don't you?

    Why against people in Southern Utah having jobs and making money?


    Is it only OK when Democrats make money?

    -Hillary Clinton made money. $240 Million between 2001-2015 (Forbes Magazine). Sec of State salary = $186,600.
    -Barack Obama is a multi-millionaire after 8 years in office. He wasn't before politics. He was earning $85K/year before politics. He made $20 Million in 8 years as President (President salary = $400K/year).
    -What about the Kennedy family? George Soros? John Kerry? AL Gore?
    Lots of Democrats make money (some from politics, land, even energy).
    Warren Buffet (rich democrat) got rich off real-estate.

    The point is...
    People make money (Ds and Rs). Didn't start when Trump became President.

    Families in Southern Utah need jobs and money just like you and I.

    It's inconsistent if it's only wrong when the wrong people (Non-Democrats) make money.

    If Americans make money when Trump makes a decision... I'm OK with that.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 12, 2017 1:36 p.m.

    RE: "Shrinking Bears Ears is undemocratic"...
    That's what you get when you have a law that allows one person (President) to make decisions without a vote of the people, or our elected representatives.

    Shrinking it was "Undemocratic" (no vote).
    Forming it was "Undemocratic" (no vote).

    Don't pretend forming it was Democratic, but shrink not. Both used the same process (Undemocratic process of one man decisions).

    AA is just as undemocratic when used by one President as it is for another.

    Be consistent.


    RE: "The decision to shrink public lands for use aside from preservation and exploration leads to a dangerous precedent"...
    So much mis-information there.

    #1. No public land shrank. Land was removed from the NM but it's still public land. you know that... right?

    #2. Why is it dangerous to move land outside a NM? It's still managed by Feds.


    RE: "This decision blatantly ignores the voice of the people"...

    #1. Doesn't ignore the voice of the people. There was no vote. We don't rule by media polls.

    #2. It's a lie that every poll shows the people don't want it reduced.

    Google "Majority of Utahns favors trimming Bears Ears" (SL Trib)

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Dec. 12, 2017 7:10 a.m.

    Behind every Trump bill is someone who will make a lot of money.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 11, 2017 10:49 a.m.

    Who sys those wanting a monument are not after money.

    "A Facebook promotion details that for a pledge of $10,000, the donor will receive a guided hike with Josh Ewing, Friends of Cedar Mesa's executive director, to secret sites."

    "The draft memo raised questions, too, over other Friends of Cedar Mesa media productions, including the Patagonia-funded "Defined by the Line — A Film About the Fight to Save Bears Ears."

    The 2015 film shows Ewing climbing into an archaeological site and picking up a pottery shard...."

  • Husker2 Aspen, CO
    Dec. 11, 2017 7:46 a.m.

    If the public voted on this issue, how many citizens would really know the facts about Trump's actions and how many would rely on propaganda fed to them by liberal media outlets?

  • gridlockisbetter Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2017 1:14 p.m.

    These lands haven't been lost, stolen, or sold as a result of Mr Trump's actions. They are still under federal control. Public access to them has simply been increased. How is this less democratic?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 10, 2017 11:24 a.m.

    "I strongly disagree with the decision to reduce public lands at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase."

    Here is the deal. I think it was a stupid politically driven move as well.... but.... let's not loose our minds about this. These lands are still public lands. Period. They didn't transfer over to any private group. They didn't become state managed lands. They will still be some of the most tightly managed lands by the BLM.

    What this does mean though is ranchers will still get access to the land, but by losing its status, it will also lose investment to protect and improve those lands. The monument still stands. The native Americans once again were over looked in this process - their voices ignored. Would be mining interest and their proxy "Bishop" have a moral victory - and not much more.

    And when Trump leaves office, the pendulum will swing the other way, and there still won't be stability for anyone in the region. They will still be the puppets of Hatch and Bishop who feed them false hope of prosperity on public lands.

    And so it goes.... not much changes.

  • Nichol Draper West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 10, 2017 11:24 a.m.

    Creation and shrinking was undemocratic. Guess what, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. These monuments will change size again until we remove the power from the president. The next Conservative president could remove them altogether. The next liberal president could declare our entire state a monument and require us all to move. He could even declare us nuisances and say we need to be exterminated. I was thirteen before the last extermination order was rescinded, I wonder when the next one will come. I'm expecting it within a few years, judging by how sure some people are of their points of view.

  • PHR Orem, UT
    Dec. 9, 2017 8:19 p.m.

    The creation of these national monuments was undemocratic too.

    This is a problem. The president has too much power to create (and now shrink) national monuments at will. Democracy plays no role in it.

    Earlier controversies have limited the president's power a little but only in Wyoming and Alaska. I think it should be limited nationwide.