Utah's congressional delegation has asked President Obama not to use the Antiquities Act to create a Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah.
In quick reaction to President Obama's use of the Antiquities Act to designate three national monuments in California, members of Utah's congressional delegation have asked the president specifically not to use his powers under that Act to designate a monument in southeastern Utah.
Interior Department officials announced late Thursday that the president would designate Castle Mountains National Monument, Sand to Snow National Monument, and Mojave Trails National Monument in California, and made a point of noting that there was great local support for the designations. Supporters of protecting these areas include local counties and cities, area business groups, tribes, hunters, anglers, faith-based organizations, recreationists, local land trusts and conservation groups, and students from local schools, the release said.
By midday Friday the Utah delegation announced that it had sent a letter to the president "expressing strong opposition to the use of the Antiquities Act to create a national monument within San Juan County."
The land in question, some 1.9 million acres, has been discussed as a potential national monument for some time. While Native American tribes have wanted to see establishment of a Bears Ears National Monument, U.S. Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz, both Utah Republicans, have proposed a 1.2-million-acre Bears Ears National Conservation Area.
In their letter to the president -- signed by Sens. Orin Hatch and Mike Lee, and Reps. Bishop, Chaffetz, Stewart, and Mia Love -- the delegation stated that "(F)ederal land-use policy has a major impact on the lives of those residing within and near federal lands. We believe the wisest land-use decisions are made with community involvement and local support. This principle is true whether skyscrapers or sagebrush surround the community.
“Use of the Antiquities Act within will be met with fierce local opposition and will further polarize federal land-use discussions for years, if not decades. We believe the wisest land-use decisions are made with community involvement and local support. This principle is true whether skyscrapers or sagebrush surround a community. Use of the Antiquities Act within will be met with fierce local opposition and will further polarize federal land-use discussions for years, if not decades."
Comments
Becasue they know the people in Utah don't support the DNC
lee - there is a major difference between financing those that support your position and bribing one to change their vote to support your position. You claim the latter but repeatedly have failed to produce a single incidence where a standing law maker has done so. More baseless accusations.
Then I guess over 80% of our fellow Americans are making the same baseless accusations.
Enough of this nonsense. Trying to nail down the corrupting effects of money in politics is like trying to swim upstream against a tide of slime mold. Politicians are experts at hiding their tracks. Direct connections are rarely found and prosecuted. But I'll ask again, if people who donate huge sums to political campaigns don't expect a return on their considerable investments, why do they invest?
Please give us an answer to that one question.
What 80% are you talking about?
But that doesn't stop you from making the accusations.
Quite simple, they invest in those that support the donors' goals. Nothing illegal or immoral about that.
Alfred--I am not sure I agree with you about the political theater. The first step is to get a boundary around it that precludes certain uses. And while I agree that the President is no TR when it comes to conservation, he is no Ronald Reagen either who,if my memory serves me correctly, set aside no national monuments.
Fair enough, Rick, but here is the problem. Existing uses do not simply "end." If I have grazing privileges, or a mining right, they only expire when the permit expires. A national monument does not preclude my using "my" land if I obtained my permit legally. The government has to buy me out.
Then will they, or will these new inholdings fester? Next will come "the deals," offering to exchange x for y. Then watch out. Or as the Trojans learned all too late in life, beware of anyone bearing gifts.
Yeah Reagan was a real terror to public lands.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/10/1428851/chart-obama-has-prot...
I Agree that we as a nation should protect certain areas as "National Parks". But I invite you to visit the proposed area in San Juan County, to see what they are trying to do. In a majority agricultural community it would devistate the cattle ranchers and their familys in the area. This is not a good plan.
Trevor, respectuflly disagree with you. All the land is already federal land. None is private, although grazing has been allowed -- and may perhaps continue. (That will depend upon how the monument's creation is written.) I may well remain under adminstration by the Forest Service. There are many unknowns at this point.
The idea that it would "devestate" ranching families is an exaggeration. There is such a strong feeling of entitlement down there that loss of federally subsidized grazing would be reduce or eliminated is tough for people to swallow. The entitlement mentality is akin to a tenant of a rental apartment who suddenly begins to claim that, because he has rented the apartment for many years he is now entitled to take over ownership.