Rationale for a National Monument in the Bears Ears Area
I. Introduction
The proposed size of the Bears Ears National Monument is approximately 1.9 million acres, which is roughly twenty percent larger than the state of Delaware. The alternative Public Lands Initiative (PLI) suggested by Representatives J. Chaffetz and R. Bishop encompasses 4.6 million acres within the Bears Ears area (Bears Ears Coalition) (Chaffetz and Bishop). The difference between the two proposals is the difference of priorities. Utah is a very conservative state and the legislature supports limited federal involvement in public land management. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition 's objective is to prevent further abuse of land that is sacred to Native American tribes …show more content…
Opponents to the national monument claim that conservational goals set by the Bears Ears National Monument Proposal won 't be solved by a monument designation because tourism would only degrade the environments that native tribes want to protect (Maffly). It is unfair for state and local authorities to only focus on the degradation of outsiders and not the vandalism caused by locals. The notion of "local entitlement" is a culturally ingrained factor that has pushed many San Juan County residents to participate in ‘pot hunting ' (Moe). In 2009, seventeen individuals were arrested by federal agents in nearby Blanding, Utah for trafficking over a quarter million dollars in stolen ancient Indian Artifacts (Berkes). It was only after 2009 that local Boy Scout groups were told not to collect arrowheads or broken pottery to earn their archaeology merit badge (Berkes). This sort of vandalism has decreased as awareness of the importance of these areas has grown but the mentality still exists. The sites that have been looted and are still in danger of being looted are not just pueblos and sentimental wall carvings but places where sacred burial grounds where the ancestors of Native Americans that have lived in the area reside (Matz). Within the proposed boundaries of the Bears Ears Monument, over 100,000 archeological and cultural sites are would be protected …show more content…
The Bears Ears National Monument proposal would prevent abuse of land development under the Antiquities Act (Bears Ears Coalition). The State of Utah has always been against federal overreach in public land management to the point of passing Utah 's Transfer of Public Lands Act in 2012. The Transfer of Public Lands Act demands that the federal government transfer federal land back to the state after 2014 (Ivory and Neiderhauser). Presently, no action has been taken by federal authorities to address any transferal but the Act is proof that the State of Utah will not support a monument designation. Under PLI, land management is not exclusive to land protection simply because the interests of the State of Utah and counties is more capitalistic (Duffy-Deno). In the PLI, 1.7 million acres (that includes already protected national parks) would be designated as National Conservation Areas (Chaffetz and Bishop). National Conservation Areas still allow for development in mineral extraction (Bishop & Chaffetz). The PLI also removed air quality control monitored under the Clean Air Act and makes it impossible to monitor air visibility (Bishop and Chaffetz,
I. Introduction
The proposed size of the Bears Ears National Monument is approximately 1.9 million acres, which is roughly twenty percent larger than the state of Delaware. The alternative Public Lands Initiative (PLI) suggested by Representatives J. Chaffetz and R. Bishop encompasses 4.6 million acres within the Bears Ears area (Bears Ears Coalition) (Chaffetz and Bishop). The difference between the two proposals is the difference of priorities. Utah is a very conservative state and the legislature supports limited federal involvement in public land management. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition 's objective is to prevent further abuse of land that is sacred to Native American tribes …show more content…
Opponents to the national monument claim that conservational goals set by the Bears Ears National Monument Proposal won 't be solved by a monument designation because tourism would only degrade the environments that native tribes want to protect (Maffly). It is unfair for state and local authorities to only focus on the degradation of outsiders and not the vandalism caused by locals. The notion of "local entitlement" is a culturally ingrained factor that has pushed many San Juan County residents to participate in ‘pot hunting ' (Moe). In 2009, seventeen individuals were arrested by federal agents in nearby Blanding, Utah for trafficking over a quarter million dollars in stolen ancient Indian Artifacts (Berkes). It was only after 2009 that local Boy Scout groups were told not to collect arrowheads or broken pottery to earn their archaeology merit badge (Berkes). This sort of vandalism has decreased as awareness of the importance of these areas has grown but the mentality still exists. The sites that have been looted and are still in danger of being looted are not just pueblos and sentimental wall carvings but places where sacred burial grounds where the ancestors of Native Americans that have lived in the area reside (Matz). Within the proposed boundaries of the Bears Ears Monument, over 100,000 archeological and cultural sites are would be protected …show more content…
The Bears Ears National Monument proposal would prevent abuse of land development under the Antiquities Act (Bears Ears Coalition). The State of Utah has always been against federal overreach in public land management to the point of passing Utah 's Transfer of Public Lands Act in 2012. The Transfer of Public Lands Act demands that the federal government transfer federal land back to the state after 2014 (Ivory and Neiderhauser). Presently, no action has been taken by federal authorities to address any transferal but the Act is proof that the State of Utah will not support a monument designation. Under PLI, land management is not exclusive to land protection simply because the interests of the State of Utah and counties is more capitalistic (Duffy-Deno). In the PLI, 1.7 million acres (that includes already protected national parks) would be designated as National Conservation Areas (Chaffetz and Bishop). National Conservation Areas still allow for development in mineral extraction (Bishop & Chaffetz). The PLI also removed air quality control monitored under the Clean Air Act and makes it impossible to monitor air visibility (Bishop and Chaffetz,