Bears Ears rift reveals monumental federal-county chasm
While many nationwide fear the potential loss of the country's newest monument, the leadership of at least one Utah county cheers the Trump administration's decision to reconsider the size of Bears Ears National Monument.听
Former President Barack Obama鈥檚 proclamation preserving more than 1.3听million听acres of southern Utah鈥檚 ruin-filled canyon-maze in San Juan County thrilled many Native Americans, environmentalists, and outdoor enthusiasts. But where some see the protection of relics, others see diminished sovereignty.
The move infuriated community and state politicians, who decried it as freedom-quashing federal overreach. Local residents should get to decide how best to use and preserve the land, they say 鈥� not bureaucrats thousands of miles away who may never have seen it.
鈥淚 trust people to make good decisions; I don鈥檛 trust politicians to make good decisions,鈥� says San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman, criticizing the effect of big money on both sides. 鈥淒eals are made at a high level and often the currency is more wilderness, and they come to a county like San Juan without even recognizing that there are local people here.鈥�
Monday, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke answered local politicians' pleas with his interim report recommending that President Trump ,听the monument.
His conclusion reflects a common complaint that the acreage designated was excessive. In his interim report, Mr. Zinke writes that many archaeological sites worthy of preservation exist, but that they are better managed individually than collectively. Moreover, certain officially classified wilderness areas in Bears Ears already enjoyed stronger protections than monument status provides, he writes.听
Environmental advocates and Native American tribes disagree, and will likely sue the federal government if it acts on Zinke's recommendation.听
Extraordinary measures
In December, Bears Ears joined the 156 other national monuments designated since 1906 under the Antiquities Act, which allows the president to name public lands as monuments. The designation restricts new contracts for extractive industries like mining and providing legal protection for the 100,000 cultural and archaeological sites听on the land. But if its method of creation was ordinary, the motivation was anything but.
听brought together five Native American groups听(Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Zuni, and Ute Indian Tribe)听in what听Western land law lawyer Charles Wilkinson calls one of the most extraordinary social movements he鈥檚 ever seen.听鈥淎 lot of these tribes have had long-standing grievances against each other, and I mean centuries,鈥� says Professor Wilkinson, who helped draft their proposal pro bono.听Their efforts resulted in a landmark agreement establishing co-management of the land between the tribal coalition and the federal government as true partners.
Despite significant听听and听听support for the monument,听Zinke鈥檚 decision reflects fierce听opposition from the local government, as well as the听听(although Utah鈥檚 other six Navajo chapters support the monument).听
Most specific grievances cluster around themes of land access and economic prospects, with many 听and reduced grazing land for ranchers. 鈥淚f it鈥檚 a national monument, [federal agencies] can close whatever they want. If our watershed is in a national monument, they can shut it down,鈥� says San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman.
Such complaints baffle legal experts, who insist that proclamation architects made every effort to maintain local rights and access. With few exceptions, federal land remains federal land and state land remains state land. Utah continues to issue hunting and fishing licenses, and , according to the text of the Obama administration proclamation.
The main legal difference, Wilkinson says, is that in a future land management plan 鈥渁ll decisions will be made with a 鈥渕uch heavier weight given to the value of the natural features and historical and scientific features of those lands,鈥� including rock art, ancient cliff dwellings, ceremonial sites, and wildlife.
But it鈥檚 precisely that decision-making process that has Mr. Lyman worried. He sees the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as an oppressor who closes roads and disregards local opinion, and believes the monument boosts their power: 鈥淭hey鈥檙e bad actors and we鈥檝e given them a bigger whip to use against us here locally.鈥�
Language in the proclamation providing for 鈥渕aximum public involvement鈥� and听鈥渃onsultation with federally recognized tribes and State and local governments鈥� does little to convince Zane Odell,听a third generation rancher who grazes more than 300 cattle on monument land.听
鈥淎 lot of that input goes in one ear and out the other,鈥� says Mr. Zane, who serves on a number of community committees across the border in Colorado. 鈥淲hat they鈥檒l do is weigh the local input,... but there鈥檒l be way more environmental input from all over the nation.鈥�
Philosophical differences
Such opinions reveal deeper, philosophical hurdles less easily addressed than concerns about who doles out firewood permits. The federal government owns nearly听, a proportion unimaginable in the East. This majority stake has long chafed Western states, with some residents considering the arrangement an .
Despite almost no land changing hands, Mr. Obama鈥檚 pen found its way directly onto this century-old pressure point when it sought to put new rules on what locals consider their land. Lyman, for one, calls the monument designation 鈥渢he difference between freedom and serfdom.鈥�
At stake is not only mining contracts and ranching land, but also birthright. Utah settlers听鈥渂rought this land under control. Land that if you looked at it, you couldn鈥檛 imagine it being brought under control,鈥� explains Wilkinson. 鈥淭hey do have a sense of ownership over it ... and I personally respect that feeling.鈥�
And with that ownership comes a radically different philosophy of use, one that some locals call conservation rather than preservation, rooted in the belief that only they know best how to protect the land.听
鈥淧reservation would be when they kick anybody out, including any industry, and preserve it for themselves,鈥� argues Mr. Odell. 鈥淐onservation would be to use it wisely, and conserve, you know, graze it to help benefit some of the grass species.鈥澨�
Those searching to reassure nervous ranchers point to the nearby Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which faced similar opposition when then-President Bill Clinton created it in 1996听and joins Bears Ears on the list of large monuments under federal review.听More than two decades later, ranching time has declined by a , and the community has enjoyed a tourism-supported听 across the board.
But such facts and figures only play into residents鈥� other fears: an increase in tourist traffic that could damage their land. As such, emotions have flared into what Lyman calls 鈥渟corched earth politics.鈥� In recent months, a BLM guard station , fake , and vandals allegedly scraped听听from cars and targeted听.听
With local leaders blaming monument activity on agenda-motivated outsiders and monument supporters suspecting extractive-industry tainted opposition, suspicion runs high in San Juan, and few expect a simple resolution when Zinke's final report comes out later this year.听
For now, a skeptical Odell plans to keep participating in local consultation while he awaits presidential and congressional response to Zinke's recommendation. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 have much faith in that process,鈥� he says.听鈥淏ut I鈥檓 thankful we do have that process rather than nothing at all.鈥�
