Should Utah's 'Bears Ears' become a national monument?

US Interior Secretary Sally Jewell heard public voices Saturday about the proposal to designate the vibrant landscape as a National Monument.

Rick Bowmer/AP/File
U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, center, speaks during a tour of the Indian Creek Area Thursday, July 14, 2016, near Monticello, Utah. Jewell is visiting the area this week to learn more about public views of the "Bears Ears" monument proposal.

US Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Utah's 'Bears Ears' last week in an attempt to resolve an increasingly contentious debate over whether to designate the San Juan County cultural landscape as a US National Monument.

While divisive, the debate over the area designation is also nuanced, with some wanting to see sensitive cultural sites protected from vandalism and others fearing that more rigorous regulations will restrict cultural and economic activity.

“There is nobody that I talk to that doesn’t want to see these areas protected,” said Ms. Jewell at a three-and-a-half hour public meeting on Saturday before a packed room, according to Deseret News, which reports on news in Salt Lake City and Utah.

"That is what all of this is about, listening to each of you," Jewell said on the third day of her tour. "It has been several days of intense listening and several days of getting out in these incredible landscapes and feeling the power that exists within them."

The area contains more than 100,000 archaeological sites and 18 wilderness study areas and inventoried roadless areas. Twenty-six tribes support protecting the lands, but only one full-time law enforcement officer patrols the area, according to the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.

More than 10,000 people have signed a petition asking President Obama to use his authority under the Antiquities Act to protect the 1.9 million acres of native American ancestral land on the Colorado Plateau with National Monument designation.

Jewell got an intimate view of threats to the cultural sites on a Saturday hike. Petroglyphs depicting big-horn sheep, plants, and wandering lines that emerge from cracks – thought by some archaeologists to represent the paths of individual lives and their spiritual origins – are threatened by hikers who take rocks to make cairns and engrave messages on the walls, said John Ewing, Executive Director of Friends of the Cedar Mesa in the meeting, emphasizing a need for better education.

The heart of the issue is whether the area should be fully protected as a National Monument, or partially protected under the congressional Public Lands Initiative bill, championed by US Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz, both Republicans. The bill would designate 1.4 million acres around Bears Ears as conservation area, which would keep access open for development, including oil, gas, and mining exploration.

Others opposed the designation not because it restricted business, but culture. Notah Tahy, a Navajo man from Blanding held up a sign at the meeting that read, “No to a national monument," according to The Washington Post. He said he fears that traditional activities like gathering wood and hunting would be restricted by the designation.

Jewell reassured tribespeople at the meeting that, if the designation proceeded, “the traditional activities that have gone on in these lands since time immemorial will continue."

Still, Utah Republican officials, local officials, and some Native Americans support The Public Lands Initiative – also called the “Grand Bargain” – instead. The initiative, which took three years to pull together, seeks to manage 18 million acres of land in eastern Utah.

Frustrated with the negotiations five tribes founded the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition in 2015 to oppose the initiative, according to Deseret News. Part of the coalition are the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Indian Tribe.

"They have so much in common in what I hear from you that I hope there will be a coming together," Jewell said of tribal members opposed to the designation. "There is nothing like listening and touching and hearing the different points of view and the similar points of view."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.