skylerharrison
New member
- Joined
- May 18, 2017
- Messages
- 1
In December of 2016, President Obama defined 1.3 million acres around the Bears Ears area as a National Monument and is managed by the BLM and NFS. Utah's legislature has already passed a resolution from Governor Herbert asking President Trump to repeal the action by Obama but Utah residents are split on the issue. A national monument has never been rescinded before in US history and it may be because it is prohibited by the Antiquities Act.
The only reasons I've seen against the national monument have to do with access for commercial and economic development which is prohibited as of now in the area. I think a large part of why there has been resistance to the monument is because it was enacted by Obama. If it had been someone with a (R) after their name that had signed the document I think there would be less controversy since Utah is a deep red state (especially in the area around Bears Ears).
I would like to know more about the antiquities act, why Republicans in particular are up in arms about it, and how this monument is actually a bad thing. To me it seems like the National Monument protects public lands (which Utah sucks at doing) because as far as I know, it doesn't limit access to the public any more than any other piece of public land. Is that true? Are there restrictions to non-commercial interests in a National Monument as opposed to regular BLM land? What are the pros and cons of this land being managed as a National Monument? Hope we can get a conversation going. Thanks!
The only reasons I've seen against the national monument have to do with access for commercial and economic development which is prohibited as of now in the area. I think a large part of why there has been resistance to the monument is because it was enacted by Obama. If it had been someone with a (R) after their name that had signed the document I think there would be less controversy since Utah is a deep red state (especially in the area around Bears Ears).
I would like to know more about the antiquities act, why Republicans in particular are up in arms about it, and how this monument is actually a bad thing. To me it seems like the National Monument protects public lands (which Utah sucks at doing) because as far as I know, it doesn't limit access to the public any more than any other piece of public land. Is that true? Are there restrictions to non-commercial interests in a National Monument as opposed to regular BLM land? What are the pros and cons of this land being managed as a National Monument? Hope we can get a conversation going. Thanks!
