As someone who has covered public lands issues for over 40 years and has spent days exploring what were Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, this week’s reductions in the size of the monuments challenged me to try understand both sides.
The action was preordained once President Donald Trump ordered the review. The whole process was a cynical sham. No amount of public comment or support would have changed it.
Despite what Gov. Gary Herbert said at the ceremony reducing the monuments’ size, not all Utahns were represented. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke did not meet with Escalante business owners, tribal members or environmentalists who supported designation. The fix was in from the start.
That said, rural political leaders certainly have reason for anger in the way Grand Staircase-Escalante was designated. It was done in secret, with no public input. Then President Bill Clinton didn’t even have the courtesy to come into Utah for the announcement, which was made at the Grand Canyon.
The Bears Ears process was better. There was the Public Lands Initiative process in Congress, that ultimately failed. Decision makers spent time in the area talking to all sides and viewing it on their own. It is no accident that the boundaries almost mirrored what Utah’s congressional designation had proposed in the PLI.
President Barack Obama’s designation reflected that. There was public input and plenty of on the ground work.
When Congress failed to act, the creation of Bears Ears was not a surprise.
Part of my frustration is the amount of misinformation and hyperbole put out by both sides.
Reducing the size of the monuments does not mean that those lands now eliminated from that status will be immediately opened up to all sorts of exploitation.
These are still federal lands managed by either the Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service. Any mining or oil and gas leasing will have to pass environmental muster.
Contrary to what Utah politicians say, these monuments did not “lock up” land. Hunting, fishing and grazing (though environmental groups did purchase and retire some leases) were allowed as was state wildlife management. Some roads were closed in the Escalante area, largely because they went nowhere. And off-highway vehicle use was limited in the GSE, though a quick Google search showed some areas where it is allowed.
The designation did prevent coal mining in the Kaiparowits Plateau. But is that a big deal, given the fact that demand for coal right now is low?
Those “nameless Washington D.C. bureaucrats” who are always a popular bogeyman may have given general thoughts on how to manage the monuments, but it was the BLM district managers and Forest Service rangers and their staffs who live and work in the monument areas who do most of the on-the-ground work.
These public servants don’t deserve the abuse often heaped on them by politicians. They are trying to follow the law and do the right thing.
The monuments also pit the many newcomers who have started businesses relying on public lands against long time families whose ancestors settled the area. These conflicts often produce more heat than light.
One statement that is simply maddening is that locals should have more say in the way land near them is managed. My response? Why? These are federal lands managed for the benefit of all Americans, not just those who live near them.
Monuments can have more restrictive rules. And, they can bring more notoriety and thus more visitors, both a curse to those seeking solitude or making a living on the land and a blessing to those making a living off tourism.
So what happens now?
The short answer is not much. The way the lands are being managed will hardly change. The lawsuits challenging Monday’s action will be interesting to follow. A strict reading of the Antiquities Act makes me think these lawsuits have merit and will tie up the decision for years, perhaps even ending up in the Supreme Court.
Should the Antiquities Act be changed to limit future presidents’ ability to designate monuments?
Absolutely not. Many of the nation’s most popular parks, including four of Utah’s and the Grand Canyon, began as monuments designated by presidents.
The bottom line for me is Utah politicians do not like federal control of lands inside the state and would rather fight it than try to make partnerships work.
That fact is simply sad.
Tom Wharton | The Salt Lake Tribune
Tom Wharton is a semi-retired Salt Lake Tribune writer with more than 50 years of experience in Utah journalism.