The great public lands war rages on, and it seems as if the Bears Ears will be a decisive battleground. Secretary of the interior Ryan Zinke has recently been out to the monument as part of his Presidential commission to evaluation this and 27 other monuments over 100,000 acres. He’s issued a preliminary recommendation on bears ears and alluded that the framework here will be used for the other 27 sites on the list. KSL has a really good, in depth story on the subject thats worth reading
There is still a lot to be decided in this back and forth between special interest groups, commercial interests, governments and tribal organizations but there was something of an encouraging tone in the piece that is, frankly, a huge breath of fresh air: Zinke may actually be a reasonable, even handed and competent person. Leaving aside the depressing reality of the fact that such a person is a rarity in this political climate I am encouraged by what I read of his approach and read on the situation.
Who is This Zinke?
Zinke, a Montana native and avid sportsman, seems to have a pretty good history of making smart and even handed policy based on a balance of concerns.
He is not without concerns himself, however, as he definitely has no problem reducing barriers to coal and oil extraction and has expressed that the science of human caused climate change isn’t yet settled. As well as personal ties to real estate ventures and a tenure on an oil pipeline board.
That being said, he seems to have a track record of being in favor of reasonable approaches to the public lands issues to the point of breaking with traditional republican stands the issues.
Zinke’s approach
In opposition to the politically charged, unilateral approach that this administration is so fond of, it appears that Zinke’s approach is measured and interested in taking in all sides and in this he’s been mostly praised. Take a lot of that praise with a grain of salt though as the people who are mostly happy with his work are people with a strong states rights view who would happily recind everything they can so it can be exploited.
That being said, there has been some great praise from people on the other side of the issues, if for nothing else that his approach of listening to all sides.
The major detractors seems to come from lobbies that are fiercely in favor of the monument and its designation and would actually like to have seen a larger designation. There are theories as to why that would be, including fears that large protectionist groups have hijacked local tribal movements to advance their own agendas, but whatever the truth there it isn’t surprising given the recommendation
Zinkes recommendation
Make it smaller. Basically the charge of the President was to see if the Monuments fit the spirit and letter of the antiquities act under which they were created. That is to say - Does this monument exist to protect something specifically and does the monuments size adequately do that?
The answer, it seems in the case of bears ears, is no...its way too much land.
Remember the give and take here:
Ranchers/Miners rights to use the land
Recreational uses of the land
Tribal heritage land use
Protection of cultural antiquity
Each of these have a legit and in some cases conflictive claim on the use of public lands. And while it would be easiest to simply claim that one group or concern should trump the others (i.e. preservation above all else) that simply isn’t the history and reality of public land use and preservation.
On the far right of this spectrum would be to delete the designation, which would suite the states rights advocates who would be happy to sell the land off to private and commercial interests. On the far left is the ultra hard core conservationist who would rather you appreciate the land at a distance and not make use of the land for anything but postcards and cover photos for annual newsletters.
Somewhere in the middle is the recommendation, also bearing in mind that managing public lands isn’t free and that it takes perilously thin federal resources to keep and maintain the land in a way that would be pleasing to people in favor of the monument.
Zinke’s moderate approach would shrink the monument but an unspecified amount to a size that would be adequate for the protection of acknowledged antiquities and possibly break the monument up into smaller more manageable areas that protect what needs to be protected and leave off the excess.
It also includes a proposal to co-manage the lands with Native tribes but its unclear what that means or how it would work.
Also included in the recommendation would be to re-evaluate land that was previously designated with something other than monument statues and areas that would no longer be part of the monument to be designated more appropriately inline with their intended use. i.e. Wilderness study areas, National Recreation Areas, etc.
And while the recommendation stops short of naming these areas or moving forward on them leaving them as more hopes than concrete plans it does indicate that Zinke is actively looking to cater to more than a single group and allow for protections that would preserve the needs of as many groups as possible.
For a quick look at different types of designations here and here is something to read
The other 27
The fact that this will serve as a framework could be a blessing and a curse as each area is uniquely different in its needs as well as its age as a monument.
Stepping back a decade or two there was a similar fervor surrounding the then new controversial land grab in the state: Grand Staircase National Monument. Its easy to overlook this important area because its no longer the focus of attention but its certainly not unimportant and it may factor into the larger scheme in ways that aren’t immediately clear.
A good example would be that GSENM, if rescinded or reduced, wouldn’t have the fallback of having national protections under other names and would likely be snatched up by states rights types to mine the ever loving hell out of the amazing Kaiparowits plateau.
Concerns of how this framework would apply to other monuments as well is slightly troubling.
The end game
Undoing a national monument isn’t easy, for better or worse, and anyone who wants to change it has an uphill battle on their hands. It should also be said that this is far from a fully detailed plan and there are a lot of cards that haven’t been shown and so its too early to call this a win/lose, but I do think its encouraging to see that the mandate is being taking seriously, with earnest consideration for all parties involved. We could certainly do a LOT worse.
July 10th will be when the final report will make it to Trumps tiny hands and from there things will really get interesting. In the meantime if you want a voice on the matter you can visit the regulation.gov site where public opinion will be open for a few more weeks. I encourage you to do so, even...or more accurately especially...if your views on public land are more nuanced than either the far right or far left are concerned, as it seems they will be screaming the loudest.