Bears Ears Public Comment Period

The answer to the above question by gs goodyear is in part, this:  States vary in their desire and ability to protect important places.  Vermont...?...maybe, Utah, I do not think so.  A bigger umbrella with consistent and uniform policies not directly influenced by many private interests seems a better alternative here. 

If you've been meaning to do so but haven't, you still have a few hours to exercise one of the privileges and responsibilities that come with living in a democracy. Maybe don't blow it off...

Get the facts here:    https://thepetroglyph.com/history-of-government-lands-private-property-in-san-juan-county-utah-c6861c9c383f

OK I sat through all of that. Let's accept that it was factual. (Although describing the land grab and ethnic cleansing involved in creating the Navajo reservation as "working with the natives" stuck in my craw a little..) What I understand as the proposition in the video is:

- Old mining claims and drill holes represent some kind of history which locals value.  ( I guess the monster pile of tailings outside of Moab would qualify).

- The fact that such activity has taken place in the distant past disqualifies an area from being designated a National Monument. 

Well by the same logic Yosemite Valley would still be a center for sheep farming and logging. 

Did I miss some other argument in the video?

The Petroglyph, a publication that describes the Bears Ears designation as "a bunch of millionaires representing billion dollar companies would use their special access to the Obama Administration to call for a monument designation that would cut off access to land and natural resources in one of the poorest counties in the country".  I suppose they don't believe the designation has anything to do with preservation.  Kind of like the argument that global warming is a theory cooked up my environmentalist organizations just to increase their membership.

Not sure why Wayne is posting here.  Just joined one day ago with one post.  Doesn't appear to be  climber.  Why is it only trolls (in addition to the energy industry) appear to oppse the designation?

Wayne Erickson wrote:

Get the facts here:    https://thepetroglyph.com/history-of-government-lands-private-property-in-san-juan-county-utah-c6861c9c383f

trolls get out

I'm not sure how anyone could visit the Petroglyph website and come to the conclusion that they offer anything besides conservative punditry.  A quick visit to the "About The Petroglyph" section provides only it's mission statement "Setting the record straight on wilderness, environmental, political, and recreation focused news in Utah and the Western States" and a list of it's "editors" which includes, cryptically, The Petroglyph itself and one person, a Marjorie Haun.  A quick search of Marjorie Haun brings numerous right leaning "freelance news" articles and the Twitter handle @Reagan_Girl.  Also, none of the articles I read on the petroglyph state the author.  The website appears to be nothing more than her personal conservative blog with the façade of a freelance news source.

I've seen some conflicting reports but this generally looks like good news (Headline: Zinke won't eliminate any national monuments)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/24/zinke-national-monuments-241988

Sorry, I think the worst scenario possible has the most likely outcome.  Just another reason why more should vote...that is if the ruskies don't steal that vote.  I am in a poor mood! 

Yeah ^^^  all true except "Did Obama OR Clinton do it"   I live in the Grand Staircase.