Bears Ears National Monument

"At its worst, however, the romance of the Southwest bears the seeds of its own destruction. It so often finds expression in no more than shallow curiosity, in a destructive rummaging through the sites in search of some treasure, some tangible relic of the past that can adorn a coffee table, or worse, be discarded after a few days or weeks as would another plastic novelty. And even those who come with respect will be frustrated if too many come at once. The sites are fragile, but even more so are the understandings that are sought. For these, there must be time, and quiet–not crowds, or lectures, or guided tours.

Grand Gulch is beginning to be caught in this dilemma. It is still a place where one can visit the ruins alone, and often walk for days without seeing someone else. But it is no longer "three days on the road from Bluff." More come every year, and there has been recent vandalism in some of the sites. The Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency responsible for protecting Grand Gulch, has stationed several rangers in the area to contact visitors and run patrols. Although they take care not to establish a "police" presence, it’s clear that even in Grand Gulch, we are moving into an era of managed remoteness, of planned romance. I think that is probably how it has to be if we are to preserve the qualities of the area at all in an increasingly mobile and exploitive society. The challenge is to have effective management that does not itself overwhelm the values it is designed to protect. We shall see..."

-William Lipe, 1975

No mention of oil, coal, or gas. The threat always has been and always will be recreation. Monument status only increases the threat.
 
I was talking to a ranger up on Cedar Mesa many moons ago, and he told me they'd received a package in the mail from a couple who lived in Holland. The package contained a handful of potshards with a note that read, "We would like you to return these to where we picked them up. Ever since we collected these, we've had nothing but bad luck." They'd drawn a small map indicating where they'd picked up the shards.

I'm not superstitious, but maybe we need more of this kind of thing to make people behave. Something like a book titled, "The Hauntings of Cedar Mesa."

On second thought, never mind, would probably just attract more people.

But I think we need a new kind of designation that protects from irresponsible mineral extraction as well as irresponsible hikers. Both can be destructive.
 
LarryBoy said:
The only thing is - presidents have reduced national monument borders in the past - albeit without a challenge in court - so in some ways, precedent of action has already been established.
Click to expand...

Which ones are these? Not a challenge but I haven't come across presidential actions shrinking the borders of monuments in my research yet so I'm curious.
 
Last edited:
Rockskipper said:
I was talking to a ranger up on Cedar Mesa many moons ago, and he told me they'd received a package in the mail from a couple who lived in Holland. The package contained a handful of potshards with a note that read, "We would like you to return these to where we picked them up. Ever since we collected these, we've had nothing but bad luck." They'd drawn a small map indicating where they'd picked up the shards.
Click to expand...

Yuck! This stuff disgusts me. It happens across our protected spaces and just shows how much of value leaves our treasures. Petrified Forest NP has a giant pile (like pickup truck pile from the pictures I saw, maybe bigger if the perspective was misinterpreted) of petrified wood that people took and sent back because it cursed them. We had it happen at Katmai and Organ Pipe Cactus while I was at those places with rocks and bones and my friend had a story end up in local news after highlighting someone sending a rock back to Glacier. Usually it is after someone felt "cursed." Considering how strings of bad luck seem to happen on occasion I can only imagine these are a small portion of what walks out.

It is a real shame too, since even when they return these with good intentions of it getting returned to its proper place, land managers can't put them back. Every object has historical value and a story, that once removed from that story goes away. Once out of context it ruins our ability to properly learn from it and good scientists respect that by not putting things back when not properly accounted. Those shards will now sit in a collection of pieces removed from their timelines.

Sorry, my inner naturalist just had to share. :cry:
 
Scott Chandler said:
Yuck! This stuff disgusts me. It happens across our protected spaces and just shows how much of value leaves our treasures. Petrified Forest NP has a giant pile (like pickup truck pile from the pictures I saw, maybe bigger if the perspective was misinterpreted) of petrified wood that people took and sent back because it cursed them. We had it happen at Katmai and Organ Pipe Cactus while I was at those places with rocks and bones and my friend had a story end up in local news after highlighting someone sending a rock back to Glacier. Usually it is after someone felt "cursed." Considering how strings of bad luck seem to happen on occasion I can only imagine these are a small portion of what walks out.

It is a real shame too, since even when they return these with good intentions of it getting returned to its proper place, land managers can't put them back. Every object has historical value and a story, that once removed from that story goes away. Once out of context it ruins our ability to properly learn from it and good scientists respect that by not putting things back when not properly accounted. Those shards will now sit in a collection of pieces removed from their timelines.

Sorry, my inner naturalist just had to share. :cry:
Click to expand...
Scott, I'm a geoarchaeologist, when I have work, that is. I had an archaeologist friend down in the Four Corners area tell me that every archaeologist he knows has their own private collection. At that point, I kind of gave up. If the very people that know the importance of this stuff collect it privately, there's no hope. As a student, I was on an archaeology survey over by Fort Morgan once, working with a prominent professor at a Colorado university. I found what appeared to be a Clovis point. I gave it to that professor and never heard anything of it again. I know it went into a private collection.

I'll add that most of the professionals I know and work with are not collectors, but it is just human nature, for better or for worse. As for myself, the only piece in my private collection is a very small point made of obsidian that my grandfather found in northwest Colorado and gave me as a child. It was actually the touchstone responsible for me going into my profession.
 
Last edited:
Rockskipper said:
Scott, I'm a geoarchaeologist, when I have work, that is. I had an archaeologist friend down in the Four Corners area tell me that every archaeologist he knows has their own private collection. At that point, I kind of gave up. If the very people that know the importance of this stuff collect it privately, there's no hope. As a student, I was on an archaeology survey over by Fort Morgan once, working with a prominent professor at a Colorado university. I found what appeared to be a Clovis point. I gave it to that professor and never heard anything of it again. I know it went into a private collection.

I'll add that most of the professionals I know and work with are not collectors, but it is just human nature, for better or for worse.
Click to expand...


Craig Childs book, "Finder's Keepers" book explores the grey space in archaeology beautifully. I may have to read it again.
 
Nick said:
This article has some good info on the past history of monument boundary changes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...res-in-utahcan-trump-un-conserve-them/530265/
Click to expand...

Nice article. One new thing I gleaned is that the courts have stated before that there is no hard limit on the size of a national monument. This could mean that even if the president does have the authority to reduce the size of a monument--which is a huge if--there could still be a question of the conditions under which the president has this authority. That is, can he do it on a whim, or does there need to be a better reason (National security, as in the example of Olympia).
 
Rockskipper said:
I had an archaeologist friend down in the Four Corners area tell me that every archaeologist he knows has their own private collection. At that point, I kind of gave up. If the very people that know the importance of this stuff collect it privately, there's no hope. As a student, I was on an archaeology survey over by Fort Morgan once, working with a prominent professor at a Colorado university. I found what appeared to be a Clovis point. I gave it to that professor and never heard anything of it again. I know it went into a private collection.
Click to expand...

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

I worked with someone who found a knapping site with an arrowhead in it that she ended up keeping because she feared someone else would. It's like the flip side, taking things to keep others from taking things. She knew the forest archaeologist wouldn't let it sit either. Such a shame to me.
 
Scott Chandler said:
I worked with someone who found a knapping site with an arrowhead in it that she ended up keeping because she feared someone else would. It's like the flip side, taking things to keep others from taking things. She knew the forest archaeologist wouldn't let it sit either. Such a shame to me.
Click to expand...
I can't begin to tell you how much surface stuff I've found. Unless it's something major, I'll simply leave it unless I know it's in a popular area where someone else will take it, then I try to hide it. I'll simply set it in a small rock alcove or put it in the middle of a bunch of shrubs etc. that kind of thing, always close to where I found it. I've reported things that I knew were going to disappear and that I thought were worthy of checking out, but most land-management people are usually too busy to even go look. I will get a GPS reading and take photos if it's something that could be significant. The nice thing about hiding things is that you don't lose the provenance, and when I go back out there I might just get lucky and find it again, forgetting I already found it and think it's something new. Note that I'm not talking about things like pots, but points and scrapers in lithic scatter and that kind of thing. I've found literally hundreds of knapping sites while just out wondering around. I'm not talking about just places like Cedar Mesa, but all over Colorado, Utah and Montana, Idaho etc. I would suspect someone like Udink could say the same thing, as well as many of the members of this forum.

I once found a beautiful awl in a dirt parking lot on Cedar Mesa. I suspect someone had found it and decided to toss it. It was a miracle it hadn't been driven over and broken. At that point, like you said, without the provenance, it's lost most of its meaning, though one can still determine type, etc.
 
Last edited:
Nick said:
Whatever has happened in the past, what makes this unprecedented is the widespread opposition and imminent court battle. Since it's never really been ruled on, that precedent doesn't really matter much.
Click to expand...
I think it'd be very interesting, if the court ruled shrinking to be illegal, to see what they'd do about previously-shrunk monuments.
 
LarryBoy said:
Olympic National Monument was shrunk before it became a National Park. I want to say it's happened a couple of other times too but I can't find a source.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...res-in-utahcan-trump-un-conserve-them/530265/
Click to expand...

Ah interesting! I'd never seen this.

LarryBoy said:
I think it'd be very interesting, if the court ruled shrinking to be illegal, to see what they'd do about previously-shrunk monuments.
Click to expand...

It'd depend entirely on how the shrink was made. Congress does have the authority to change monument boundaries and delist them, this is in law somewhere, might be FLPMA, and has been done a handful of times. Boundaries set by congress wouldn't be touched by any ruling. Where the question is is with the president's authority to change boundaries. I can only imagine nothing would be done to change anything unless congress worked some legislation. I can't see a court saying, "shrink all monuments to their original size" LOL
 
Scott Chandler said:
I can't see a court saying, "shrink all monuments to their original size" LOL
Click to expand...

Right, because that’s not the way courts work. They can’t unilaterally set policy, they can only respond to questions of law.

A ruling saying the president lacks authority to shrink Bears Ears would become precedent, preventing future action. But past executive actions would be left alone, unless and until someone brought another challenge against them.

Also, it is somewhat telling that Zinke did not recommend rescinding any monuments outright. That could be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgement that the president lacks statutory authority to do so.
 
Dave said:
Right, because that’s not the way courts work. They can’t unilaterally set policy, they can only respond to questions of law.

A ruling saying the president lacks authority to shrink Bears Ears would become precedent, preventing future action. But past executive actions would be left alone, unless and until someone brought another challenge against them.

Also, it is somewhat telling that Zinke did not recommend rescinding any monuments outright. That could be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgement that the president lacks statutory authority to do so.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree, sort of. Brown vs Board, to pick an easy example, integrated all the schools, not just the Topeka system. The reason, of course, is because once the court sets precedent, it's merely a formality to bring similar suits against any other segregated school systems.

Similarly, depending on the court's exact rationale for undoing the shrinkage, undoing the shrinking of the other monuments would be a mere formality. And you can believe that someone would.

Now I agree with you that the administration would never voluntarily take action to undo the reduction unless ordered specifically by the court. So yes, somebody would have to file the suit, but the case itself would be a bit of a no-brainer based on precedent.
 
Nick said:
Whatever has happened in the past, what makes this unprecedented is the widespread opposition and imminent court battle. Since it's never really been ruled on, that precedent doesn't really matter much.
Click to expand...
Uh..... There is widespread opposition to the current monument size..... Like politics it's usually close to 50 / 50 in disaggreement
 
Bob said:
Uh..... There is widespread opposition to the current monument size..... Like politics it's usually close to 50 / 50 in disaggreement
Click to expand...

The word "widespread" is pretty generic, and not very accurate. "Disagreement" is more accurate. Maybe 50/50 in Utah, but the last time I checked (5 minutes ago) there are 323 million people in the U.S., with 3 million people in Utah (less than 1%). If you believe that only Utahns have a say in this, you are correct. 50/50. Thankfully, the land is Federally owned, as it should be. It is our land. Not just people who are lucky enough to live around such places. That is why Teddy Roosevelt (a pretty despicable person at times) created the Antiquities Act. It is a broadly worded document, up to a certain amount of interpretation.
A link to the Antiquities Act:

https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm

The last section:

Sec. 4. That the Secretaries of the Departments aforesaid shall make and publish from time to time uniform rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

I suppose a person like trump could come up with language modifying the Monuments boundaries, per this section, under "uniform rules and regulations", but it would have to comply with "carrying out the provisions of this Act."
 
Even in Utah support for Bears Ears runs anywhere from 50% - 70% depending on which poll you look at. Support for GSENM is much higher than that. Considering Utah is what like 70-80% Republican that says a lot to me, it says that even among staunch conservatives most people overwhelmingly support out public lands, parks, and monuments. Outside of Utah and other overwhelmingly conservative states I imagine most people overwhelmingly support Bears Ears. I'm not entirely opposed to shrinking the boundaries of the monument, but I think it's false to claim that support runs 50/50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top