# Bears ears and national monuments



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

With 1.9 million acres most likely becoming a national monument by the end of the year, I'm just wondering a little more about national monuments. Grand Staircase national monument is a great place with amazing access, amazing deer, and I am personally glad it is protected despite its controversy. On the Staircase monument, it seems access is good, there's plenty of open trails, hunting is allowed, and I believe even livestock grazing is still allowed on most of it. So my question is, what goes in to deciding those things once the president declares an area a national monument? Does the department of interior create a plan for the monument and it goes through the normal public process? Or is it a completely different process? I would imagine with it being such a big monument if it's created it would have similar land use plans as the staircase monument, maybe more strict because of the Native American artifacts and dwellings there.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So my question is, what goes in to deciding those things once the president declares an area a national monument?


National monuments are confusing because the only thing they all have in common is the process by which they're designated. In general, NM designation attempts to allow continued traditional uses while limiting future development. If things work as intended, restrictions and regulation are consistent with the purpose of the designation. Of course, politics being what they are, things don't always work as intended.

This site provides the details of the Bear's Ears proposal. State leadership and the POTUS have been delivered the proposal along with supporting documents in a package of about 250 pages.

NM designation is supposed to be a public process. In the case of Grand Staircase-Escalante, it was not. But the Bear's Ears proposal most certainly has been.

NM designation is supposed to have a clear purpose or intent. In the case of GSE, the stated purpose was pretty vague while many believe that its real purpose was to just prevent the Andalex coal mine (which is not a valid use of the Antiquities Act). Bear's Ears proposal is very specific in its intent and happens to be a perfect AA candidate.

Still the Bear's Ears proposal has a context in which it could also be argued that there's an ulterior motive despite its valid qualifications. With Utah's state leadership working as they are for transfer of public lands to state control, it's worth noting that if this area is designated, that designation couldn't be undone. (That's why Utah isn't seeking transfer of parks or monuments.) Remember that while the area has been controversial for 30 years or more, this proposal evolved from failed talks in Rob Bishop's PLI process.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

The biggest issue I see and the biggest reason I believe a monument is almost all but certain is Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz tried to run out the clock and have now introduced legislation too late. They thought they were going to run out the clock on the Obama administration, and my guess is he calls their bluff. It should be protected it's just sad everything becomes so political on both sides.


----------

