Bears Ears National Monument

The time for celebration was not shared across the county however. Many citizens and government officials strongly disagreed with the decision to create the monument. They believe their rights were infringed upon when the federal government essentially took land away that could be used for economic development. Residents against the monument argue that they care for the land just as much as the natives and wanted to work together to preserve the land without restricting its use. One of the strongest oppositions to the monument has been the concern of tourism to the area that would arguably bring more destruction to the land than resource extraction. Officials decided they would not back down from this fight against the monument.

When President Trump took office in 2017 the Governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, called for the reduction Bears Ears (Meyer). Trump decided to take action by giving his Secretary of Interior the task of visiting the monument for re-evaluation of its boarders. This was not the first time a president has reduced a National Monument, however it was the first to be reduced by almost 85 percent of its original size (NordHaus).

The decision to request a reduction of the monument led the outdoor company REI to take their business out of state. This made the win for those who opposed the monument short lived since the retailer brought in 45 million in revenue to Salt Lake City each year during their roadshow. Meaning the whole process has resulted, one way or another, in a loss for everyone involved. The tug of war created from this controversy has only just began its long journey into the legal system. A coalition between environmentalist groups, tribal leaders, and all those in favor of the monument have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The suit argues that President Trump did not have the right to reduce the monument, while the opposing side argues that the Obama administration created a monument thats size was larger than needed to preserve its historical significance. The current administration has stated the Antiquities Act used to create monuments is outdated and should be revised or even abolished (Loris).

The truth is both sides of this controversy have legitimate arguments that are difficult to dispute. It seems callous to disregard the requests of Native Americans when it comes to their rights of preservation of their ancestral homeland. However, I think in this case it is important to take into consideration the willingness of the community to work with the natives in support of conservation of the land. That being said I think both sides were a little ambitious in their demands. It is my belief that if these groups could go back and work together they could come up with a compromise that would have a better outcome for all parties involved. It is my opinion that the residents who opposed the monument do respect the land and do want to work towards preserving its integrity. However, they need to include the natives in the decisions of land-use not only as consultants but they need an equal voice. The natives have been incredibly patient in their assimilation into modern society and only ask for equal consideration in the use of their land. I believe the fight for Bears Ears is an example of how not working together and having respect for others leads to unnecessary pain and suffering for everyone involved.