top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

A Line in the Sand: Hands Off Our National Monuments


A view of the Whitewater River running through the Sand to Snow National Monument, one of the national monuments on President Trump's "review" list.

It's taken me a week to collect my thoughts on President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13792, issued on April 26. But when the call for public comment was issued by the Department of Interior on May 5, the seriousness of the order hit home, especially with three newly designated national monuments nearby.

While at The Sun Runner we try to only dive into politics that directly impact the Southwest (as we geographically define it), and thus have not weighed in regularly on the 2016 election, or its results (we did, however, endorse Senator Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries, as it seemed he was the best choice for the environmental, social welfare, and cultural values of the region), our new president has crossed a line in the sand with his recent executive order on national monuments that we cannot, and will not, ignore.

While recognizing our readers may have varying opinions on public lands use, overall, this new executive order is dangerous, based in ignorance, unlikely to hold up in court, and panders to special interests while the American public loses. It is unacceptable and needs to be challenged by everyone who values our national monuments and parks, as if this order succeeds in reversing national monument status, or drastically shrinking these monuments, then the door will be opened for additional assaults on our entire national park system. And make no mistake, those assaults will come.

Trump, who vocally opposed the use of executive orders during his campaign, has enthusiastically embraced them as a popular, if, in his case, often ineffectual tool for governing. Former president, Barack Obama, had some of his executive orders reigned in during his eight years in office, while Trump has had his orders eviscerated three times already, just within his first 100 days in office.

Central to Trump's ordered reviews of national monuments created since 1996 using the Antiquities Act, and that are larger than 100,000 acres, is the belief that they may be illegal. This is highly unlikely, and reflects a poor understanding of the act and its history.

"That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected..."

- From An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities, 1906

The Antiquities Act became law when it was signed by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1906. The language Trump's administration is attempting to use to reverse monument status or reduce the size of monuments, is noted above: "...which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected..." Sounds simple, perhaps to someone who has never really hiked anywhere other than a golf course. But, of course, it's not that simple.

First, as an example, let's look at Obama's establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument. The insinuation that there hasn't been enough public comment or discussion over monument designation here, is entirely bogus, to the point where it needs to be noted that the Trump administration has fabricated this "concern" behind the ordered reviews. As the Center for Western Priorities has found, literally years of communication and coordination between stakeholders in Utah and elected officials prior to designation took place, directly contradicting statements from duplicitous Utah politicians who claimed there was a lack of consultation and the designation came as "a surprise."

“Despite the hardline rhetoric lobbed against the Bears Ears National Monument by Utah politicians, their internal communications make it clear as day: this region is not just deserving of the permanent protections granted last year, but President Obama’s team went to great lengths over several years to coordinate and collaborate with Utah leaders before protecting Bears Ears, the culmination of 80 years of conservation efforts,” said the Center's Deputy Director Greg Zimmerman.

Other sources indicate the Bears Ears boundaries were based upon discussions with up to 75 Native American elders from the region. But Zinke and Utah politicians appear to ignore this and to act as if a lack of input is one of the motivating factors for the reviews. Once again, Native American input receives nothing more than lip service and disrespect. That needs to end. Now. What's covered under the protection of a national monument like Bears Ears isn't a singular artifact, or one archaeological site. Instead, there are an interconnected circle of human and natural resources included in the monument. Based around the twin buttes known as Hoon'Naqvut, Shash Jáa, Kwiyagatu Nukavachi, Ansh An Lashokdiwe, or "Bears Ears." These buttes were important to a number of Native cultures of the region, and importantly, they remain important to those cultures today. They have a history of hundreds of generations, dating back thousands of years, of relevance and reverence from the peoples of the region.

Civilizations have existed, and continue to exist, in the region around Bears Ears, and the area is rich in historical and cultural sites of importance. As would be expected, the region is held sacred by Native American tribes including the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray, the Hopi Nation, and the Zuni Tribe.

We're aware that many Americans are either woefully ignorant of Native American history and contemporary culture, or are, for perhaps a number of reasons, willing to approach Native history and culture from a clearly biased, if not racist, perspective (we'll extend that to include the Trump administration, until proven otherwise). Recent comments from Senator Orrin Hatch, who seemed to portray Native Americans as gullible victims of liberals, indicate the continuation of a patronizing attitude toward Natives. "The Indians, they don't fully understand that a lot of the things that they currently take for granted on those lands, they won't be able to do if it's made clearly into a monument or a wilderness," Hatch noted while with Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke on a Utah tour of national monuments. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Hatch did not provide specifics when asked, and when further pressed he responded that people would have to take his word for it.

But the history and cultures of the peoples who have undergone a lengthy period of genocide since Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, are invaluable and must be respected and protected.

This involves a more holistic and inclusive manner of protection than what many people may think. To try and preserve Native history and culture site by site, is to miss the point of that history and culture entirely. Native cultures (and experts in the field, especially Native thinkers are quite welcome to correct me on this topic), do not relate to their environment in the same manner as those of us who are recent immigrants, or descend from immigrants who arrived here in the past 500 years. Thus, not only sites, but the connectivity between sites, trails, natural features, etc., need to be preserved together if the preservation is to be viable. Cutting out parts of the Bears Ears National Monument, or any other, is likely to destroy the integrity and the ultimate preservation value of the monuments.

But that is likely purposeful, as it would appear from this review that there is likely an unstated agenda behind ordering the reviews of the national monuments on the list.

There are, of course, legislative and legal issues with Trump's order, as is, it seems, the norm with his attempts to govern by executive order, which is why they have had such a high failure rate so far in his administration. As David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University and editor of the Journal of Public Affairs Education, stated very well recently in The Hill in "Why Trump will lose on his push against the Antiquities Act," Trump's apparent belief that large monuments may be illegal, or that he has the authority to reverse designations made by previous presidents, are likely wrong.

Well over a dozen presidents from both major parties have used the Antiquities Act to create monuments or parks. Schultz noted that Congress' failure to attempt to restrict the size of designated national monuments, and its rejection of setting a limit to the size of monuments a president could declare as part of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976, precedent, essentially, has been set that strengthens the argument that presidents have had, with congressional acquiescence, the right to set the sizes of monuments created using the Antiquities Act.

And then there is the absolute lack of any language in the Antiquities Act for the reversal of designation. If anyone has the ability to make those changes, it likely would be Congress, and on a case by case, presumably as they arose, not years later on a whim. Congress could amend the Antiquities Act, or attempt to reverse monument designations - if they dare. While it may play well to a small demographic among their base, it may be one more reason to push them out of office in the next election, and they're pushing their luck already.

We're absolutely opposed to the reversal of designation of the monuments ordered to be under review, and consider this to be an assault on our public lands. These monuments protect and conserve historical and cultural sites of significance, sacred sites, desperately needed wildlife corridors and habitat, protect threatened and endangered species, and more. They are a much needed economic boon for the local and regional economies in and around them, for communities that often rely on tourism and recreation for their livelihood. They help protect recreational opportunities for Americans for generations to come, while also protecting archaeological resources, and cultural and historical sites we may have not yet even identified, helping to understand the history not only of American colonization, but of the rich and diverse cultures that have existed for many thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans to this continent.

We find it unfortunate that not only this publication, but all Americans who value their shared public land ownership, must voice their support for our national monuments, and their opposition to this review and its possible unstated agenda of natural resource exploitation and transfer of publicly owned lands to corporate interests, but these are the times we live in. A line in the sand has been drawn, and it's time to let the administration that steps over it know that we're paying attention and we will not back down. It's important for so many reasons, from our understanding of the past, to the protection of our country's public treasures for the future. The presented rationalizations for conducting these reviews is nonsense. There has been public input involved in the creation of these monuments. It would appear that the real reason for these reviews may be to circumvent the public input that was made, so as to cherry pick from new public input and use select opinions to drive an anti-monument, anti-preservation agenda. That is reinforced by the fact that Zinke is meeting with anti-monument groups while avoiding pro-monument organizations, even chambers of commerce, according to reports.

We will not back down. We will not give in. We will not be bullied or intimidated. We will not have our heritage sold out from underneath us. Our children and grandchildren deserve better. A president who has avoided the West and would be as out of his element on a trail in the Sand to Snow National Monument as we would be at one of his phony pretentious country clubs or golf courses, should not be allowed to steal our monuments from us. There's just too much for us to lose, and once it's gone, we won't be able to get it back.

National Monuments Under Review

Basin and Range, Nevada, 2015

Bears Ears, Utah, 2016

Berryessa Snow Mountain, California, 2015

Canyons of the Ancients, Colorado, 2000

Carrizo Plain, California, 2001

Cascade Siskiyou, Oregon, 2000/2017

Craters of the Moon, Idaho, 1924/2000

Giant Sequoia, California, 2000

Gold Butte, Nevada, 2016

Grand Canyon-Parashant, Arizona, 2000

Grand Staircase-Escalante, Utah, 1996

Hanford Reach, Washington, 2000

Ironwood Forest, Arizona, 2000

Mojave Trails, California, 2016

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, New Mexico, 2014

Rio Grande del Norte, New Mexico, 2013

Sand to Snow, California, 2016

San Gabriel Mountains, California, 2014

Snoran Desert, Arizona, 2001

Upper Missouri River Breaks, Montana, 2001

Vermillion Cliffs, Arizona, 2000

Also under review to determine whether designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders:

Katahadin Woods and Waters, Maine, 2016

(Note: The justification for this review is, as an example, utter nonsense. The monument was created on lands donated by the co-founder of Burt's Bees cosmetics, Roxanne Quimby. Her son led an effort to get the lands designated as a monument. Outdoor recreation is allowed on the land, which was purchased from the timber industry. Clearly "relevant stakeholders" such as the timber industry that sold the land, had coordinated a sale of the land, therefore they relinquish any right to complain about its use as public lands for recreation and preservation. Since it was privately donated timber lands, it's highly unlikely its use as a national monument could be much more harmful to the public and clear cutting.)

Marine National Monuments under review

Marianas Trench, Pacific Ocean, 2009

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts, Atlantic Ocean, 2016

Pacific Remote Islands, Pacific Ocean, 2009

Papahanaumokuakea, Hawaii, 2006/2016

Rose Atoll, American Samoa, 2009

Public Comments may be submitted online after May 12 at http://www.regulations.gov by entering “DOI-2017-0002” in the Search bar and clicking “Search,” or by mail to Monument Review, MS-1530, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.DATES: The Department will shortly publish a notice in the Federal Register officially opening the public comment period. Written comments relating to the Bears Ears National Monument must be submitted within 15 days of publication of that notice. Written comments relating to all other designations subject to Executive Order 13792 must be submitted within 60 days of that date.

A High Country News timeline of the Antiquities Act: http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.9/john-podesta-legacy-maker/monumental-timeline

bottom of page