Bears Ears National Monument: Protecting 1.3 Million Acres of History - Essay Sample

Introduction

Bears Ears National Monument is a national monument located in San Juan County, Utah, which unites states of America. The memorial was established by President Barrack Obama in 2016 when he was about to leave the office. The memorial consist of approximately 1.3 million acres of land surrounding Bears ears and the grand staircase. This land has a wide array of cultural, historical, and natural resources. Under the Obamas rule as per 2016, the area was declared public, and under the guard of the federal government. Specifically, United States forest service and the bureau of land management co-manage the monument, which denies the local government of Utah control over the land—the year before Obama's legislation followed serious looting of the memorial, where locals would sell artefacts that belonged to Native Americans.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Current Controversy

The legislation of Obama raised controversies by several groups, some who applaud the move and some who condemned it. Most specifically, environmental conservationists and the FBI were among the people who applaud the progress in the belief that the total control of the federal government would protect the monument from looters and vandalism. However, the locals and the local government contested against this move with several complaints. The legislation of the memorial to be under the federal government would deny the Utah government ownership and control. Some of them complained that it refused then land for the use of economic activities, which was a source of life. This includes farming, fishing, and cattle keeping. About two-thirds of Utah's area is public land, which leaves a tiny portion to the locals. Expanding the Bears Ears monument to approximately 1.3 million acres would deny them more land (Powell). Other locals feel that the legislation protected their history and that overruling it would be like land grabbing by the government. The bill also attracted controversy from private companies such as the one mining uranium in the area.

The local government of Utah opposes the move since it denies them several economic benefits that could have been obtained from the monument. Therefore, in as much and the FBI and environmental conservationists would like the land to be protected, the government would want Obama’s law to be overruled and the area given back to their control. President Trump, in an announcement concerning monuments designated since 1996, stated that he planned to override Obama’s legislation of the monument and give it back to the local government (Powell). The government of Utah intends to sell part of the land to the highest bidder to generate revenues and explore the area for activities like mining or oil and the already existing uranium.

Current Policy of the Trump Administration towards Bears Ears

Following several proposals by Governor Zinke Herbert of Utah to withdraw the federal government's control from the Bears Ears monument, President Trump issued a policy. The policy required that the approximately 1.3 million acres of land covering the Bears Ears monument be reduced by 85%. The 15 % should consist of the smallest, which is compatible with proper care and management of things that were to be protected (Creadon & Bergren). This was done under the Antiquities Act in the executive order 13792. The boundaries of the monument were to be reduced to Bears Ears Buttles, and the grand staircase escalate. This is different from the previous presidential administrations, which sought to protect the entire land and not just the two monuments. The area has a variety of other historical and cultural resources that needs to be defended apart from the two pillars. The previous administration included all these factors, while Trump administrations seem to give a little consideration to it.

Attempts by Different Groups

The policy by Trump has attracted several reactions from individuals and organizations, in a bid to influence Trump otherwise. One of the groups, Patagonia, which has been hosting Outdoor Retailer Market in Utah for over 20 years, shifted to Salt Lake City due to the developments in Utah over the Bears Ears monument. This is a big blow as the event generates typically about $45 million in local spending. Bodies like the southern Utah wilderness alliance announced to start a campaign for the building of the Bears Ears monument. John Curtis and his other Utah representatives in Utah Congress moved a bill which codifies the policy of Trump in the reduction of the Bears Ears monument to two monuments. Orrin Hatch, who is the senator of Utah, sent a map that showed the reduced part and the new proposed boundaries that would cover the two museums. Lawsuits have been passed against the move by Native tribes of America, conservation groups and Private Corporation, and some non-governmental organizations claiming that the policy y President Trump is against the law. Specifically, these include the Natural Resource Defence Council, the Hopi tribe, and Patagonia Inc. The attorney general of the Navajo nation claimed that the Antiquity act does not give the president any right to reduce an already designate monument. Some of the media houses have also condemned the policy against the Bears Ears Museum.

Understand and Appreciate the Controversy Surrounding the Bears Ears

The controversy over Bears Ears is mostly on the popularity of the land of the American people. With the upsurges in economies and a desire by many political people to develop the economy, such cases as in Bears Ears monument is inevitable. It is a critical point where the administration is willing to trade culture, history, and archaeological resources for other economic benefits deemed to be more lucrative. These are the current trends, not only in the Bears Ears Museums but also in other sectors. The probability that the plaintiffs for Bears Ears case would lose to the political aspirants of the same is very high. It shows the dominance of political influence even in the simplest things as the history of a people. In this case, the federal administration and the Utah local government is ignoring the interest of the Natives, the legacies they have over the land, and their histories.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the controversy over Bears Ears is among some of the primary debates which may attract long term debates over the same. It is almost clear on the monument's fate since most of the strongholds are for the reduction. It is feared that developments that had been there before may be embarked on and endangering some of the minor yet significant thins like artefacts in the museum. A resolution has to be reached, however, over what exactly should be done. The equity of the case is that although the plaintiffs may lose it, at least part of the significant features would be secured, as the proposed museum will be in its original size.

Works Cited

Creadon, Samantha, and Erin C. Bergren. "Bears Ears National Monument: Politics, Controversy, and Potential Remedies." Case Studies in the Environment (2019).

Powell, Bryce. Bears Ears National Monument: A Content Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives and Land Values Presented in the National Monument Review. Diss. The University of Colorado at Boulder, 2019.