Response to Vandalism caused by Fort Lewis College Students:

Ironically, Fort Lewis College passed a resolution in 2015 to support the Bears Ears National Monument in an effort to “protect” this important area; yet students in 2016 obviously have not bought into the concept of protection.  This incident, further illustrates the fact that moral behavior and care of the mother earth cannot be legislated or designated, no matter how many millions of dollars the CLF dumps into the Bears Ears Monument Campaign. Land can best be cared for and protected by those who actually use it, live by it, and love it.

It also illustrates that just because vandalism happens in Utah, does not mean it is caused by Utah citizens.  We decry the name calling and exaggeration CLF has used in their quest to illegally seize yet more land for their personal style of protection.  Their style includes “cattle free by 23”,  “lock up all natural resources,” “overrun the land with tourists”, “promote fun-hoggery”, and “locals be damned.”

The National Park Service deferred maintenance has been backlogged for years.

2014 reported a staggering backlog of $11,493,168,812 nationwide. This includes $278,094,606 for Utah parks alone. Can the federal government really take care of a monument this size when can’t manage the monuments it already has?  Or is this land just being used as collateral so that a foreign country can utilize our resources when they bail us out of our 20 Trillion dollar debt?

The inter-tribal coalition, in making this proposal, disregards 18 land use planning efforts by San Juan County, Utah State, The BLM, National Forest and the Navajo Nation. The tribes are being used as puppets by the CLF who has made promises they cannot keep.  Conservation, and preservation begin at home.  Look at your own back yard, your property, and how you use your resources, then choose leaders who live what they preach.  (Sent to Cortez Journal)

Read article

Bear Essentials Nov. 27, 2016

Nov. 20-Dec. 3  Bear Necessities

The election of Donald Trump has NOT slowed down the opposition.  Pro-monument forces are filling newspapers and TV ads with half truths and scare tactics as they push for more National Monuments.  Please, please let your voice be heard. Write, and then respond when others publish articles; follow the news whether on TV, radio, newspaper and exercise your freedom of speech.

Facts relative to the Antiquities act that could be used (Thanks Wendy Black): 

The Antiquities Act is no longer a stand-alone privilege of the POTUS (President of the U.). Since the incorporation of the National Park Service it now requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to implement the obligations that balance human and natural environments. The Antiquities Act is not supposed to be used until an inventory of private inholdings have been done and have been distinguished from lands owned and controlled by the federal government. In accordance with the FLPMA mandates, the Antiquities Act is to be identified and confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected, (not 1.9 million acres). The objects are to be situated on land owned or controlled by the federal government. The Act is limited to objects, items and structures. All others are to be in accordance with FLPMA mandates. There are six procedural requirements that are to be performed in order to enact the Antiquities Act.

1.      Scientific studies to assess the range, occurrence and proper care of objects.

2.      The Secretary is to create and publish inventories that distinguish public land from inholdings, such as; water rights, mining claims, state and private inholdings, grazing allotments, easements and rights of way.

3.      The Antiquities Act is supposed to contain the smallest area compatible with proper care of objects to be protected by said Act.

4.      The corporate or private in holders are to be notified of their rights to participate or relinquish their rights in a timely manner.

5.      Local input is to be sought in what constitutes proper care and management of the objects for protection.

6.      State and local inholdings need to be identified for tax, impaired right of way, affected water rights, safety or any other problems that may arise from premature designation.

--I’ve updated and revised the links on my Bears Ears blog several times, and finally have a pretty good collection of newspaper e-mail addresses (copy and paste) as you send letters out. (https://beyondthebears.blogspot.com/)

--This article in the Huffinton Post needs responses.  The headline reads: “In The Weeks Before Trump Takes Office, Obama’s Mad Dash To Save Public Lands” (scroll down to where it shows how many comments there are…click and join the discussion.)

--A similar article in the Guardian: 

--A very good link provided by Linda Patterson regarding multiple-use of lands. This was a public symposium discussing many different land issues. Two-day event with 18 different topics discussed/ video taped. Very informative, especially for those directly involved in land issues in the west. Use some of these facts as you write.

--Allowing states to regulate the energy resources on federal lands means more efficient and accountable management. States share the cost of the maintenance of federal lands and have regulatory structures to manage federal lands within their boundaries.  Read more about it.

-- Read: Obama exploits Native tribes to further extreme environmental agenda

--Attached is a file explaining The Federal Land Freedom Act: Empowering States to Regulate Energy Will Yield Better Economic and Environmental Results Testimony before Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources U.S. House of Representatives.  This could be the basis of a very powerful letter to the editor.  I hope several of you will write and send letters.

--Come to the Tree for All Dec. 2-3 Wellness Center.   We will have a booth there. 

Letter to Uintah Basin Standard Nov. 20

I agree with Chris Saeger’s initial statement in the Nov. 17 paper, that as westerners, “we love our public lands.”  It is because of that core value attachment to the land, that San Juan County citizens have been fighting to protect 1.9 million acres from further federal restriction and control, via a national monument.  We appreciate the support given by the Duchesne County Commissioners who approved resolution 16-11 opposing the Bears Ears National Monument designation during their meeting on Nov. 14.   

San Juan County is already home to six of those federal designations/destinations:  Natural Bridges, Hovenweep, Canyonlands, Dark Canyon and Grand Gulch Wilderness areas, and Glen Canyon Recreation Area.   Only 8% of San Juan County’s 5,077,120 acres are privately owned.  We need jobs and a tax base and multiple use of local land not one more monument. Some areas in that coveted land, do NOT meet the definition of “public”, including 43 grazing allotments, 661 water-right infrastructures, 151,000 acres of state trust land, and 18,000 acres of private property, as well as hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure. 

Because most of the area in question, is already public, the BLM and Forest Service have the authority and jurisdiction to manage it.  It may be true that inadequate staffing has been a problem, but consider that our Federal Government is nearly $20 Trillion in debt; it's a wonder that anything is functioning. If you managed your personal budget like the US government, you'd be filing for bankruptcy, or be in debtors' prison.  Ironically, the US National Parks and Monuments are under a 2-year maintence deferment totaling nearly $11.5 billion dollars. Utah alone is behind $278,094,606 in park maintenance.  There is no money to support EXISTING monuments, much less new ones. 

We have learned from other “monumental” mistakes, that tourist destinations have a heavy negative impact on land.  Because the State of Utah does such a good job of promoting Parks and Monuments, places like Moab and Zions park are now overrun by too many visitors.  In the Cedar Mesa area of San Juan County where thousands of fragile Anasazi ruins exist, such excessive visitation would be counterproductive to preservation of these important sites. The BLM already has the jurisdiction and power to enforce and supervise visitation there. National Monument status would only compound existing problems.

Unlike Mr. Saeger who believes that the federal government can better manage public lands, I find no fiscal support for his position. I would also suggest that perhaps the restrictive nature of federal timber management and policy has often been the very cause of fires. Wouldn’t it be wiser to allow logging, and encourage gathering of dead wood, and allow cattle to graze to control grass, rather than burning up our U.S. forests? I do agree we need to give the president elect a chance to make both America and our public lands great again.  Sign our petition, join our protest, and let sovereign state’s rights speak louder than rich lobby coalitions. www.savebearsears.com

Should Bears Ears be designated a national monument? Stanford: Bill Lane Center

Janet Wilcox San Juan County, Utah

Responding to Weighing the Future of Bears Ears Butte

Both Bill Crowder and Mark Meloy, criticize San Juan County for not having a viable solution for protecting public land; however, they did have a collaborative solution of what could be done. It was the San Juan County PLI-- not to be confused with the current version in Congress. And “No,” Josh Ewing, a national monument is not “the only practical way to protect this area.”

The San Juan County PLI group had worked for 3 years with all vested interests and differing views at the table, and they came up with a decision that was a workable compromise. At that time they were focusing on protecting the much smaller Cedar Mesa area, and a northern conservancy district. Even the Conservation Lands Foundation up through October 2014 was referring to the designation as “Cedar Mesa” as part of their “current campaign” (i.e. meaning dumping manpower and money into having that part of San Juan County designated as a National Monument.)

Then Brooke and Terry Tempest Williams held a soiree (the Saturday after Thanksgiving 2014) which Josh Ewing by the way, attended. Scott Groene from the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance asked Jonah how he felt about the north boundary being extended up through Canyonlands. “The more land the better”, Jonah said. “We are with you.” There a hand picked group of 12 “no negotiation” activists, orchestrated a unilateral change to the scope of what should be “protected.” Ms Williams clearly states in her book, “The Hour of Land, exactly how the evening played out, should you want more information on how that disastrous turn for the worse began.

In a letter Terry Tempest Williams wrote to Secretary Sally Jewell a few weeks later, Dec. 21, 2014, she describes a visit to Washington DC. and says, “The Navajo leadership returned home with a ‘perceived’ directive from the Department of the Interior to ‘disengage’ from a local, collaborative vision.” So don’t be blaming San Juan County leadership or citizens for lack of cooperation, or vision, or a desire to help protect this important landscape. When Jonah Yellowman agreed that the original designation should be expanded and blown up to 1.9 million acres (thus eventually renamed Bears Ears), this extreme environmental group felt free to “pillage and burn” state’s rights, local input, and the reputation of San Juan County citizens. We were high jacked, and made to look like the bad guy, by every environmental web site and lobby group in the nation. It has been yellow journalism at its best. I think it’s time that compromise be introduced back into your vocabulary and into the discussion.

11/21/16, 2:19pm

Weighing the Future of Bears Ears Butte

Stanford University's Bill Lane Center for the American West has begun a Blog that discusses land issues and Bears Ears is the first featured topic.  They invited two Pro Monument and two No Monument writers to participate in the debate.  The article was introduced by the editor,  Felicity Barringer.

"A major land-use decision still sits on the desk of President Barack Obama. An inter-tribal coalition of five Native nations is petitioning to use the Antiquities Act to create 1.9 million acres of southeastern Utah, around the Bears Ears butte, as a new National Monument.

The 1.9 million acre Bears Ears National Monument proposed for federal lands in southeastern Utah. View a detailed map of the proposed area.

It would include a museum-like center focused on both tribal knowledge and scientific knowledge. As proposed, a joint federal-tribal council would manage the monument. Tribal representatives would form a majority of the council — the first time since the United States was founded that Natives have formally controlled the lands where they originated, rather than the reservations where they were confined.

The proposal has reignited the long-standing anger of local residents and their representatives who deeply resent federal moves to take more control over the lands that they call home. There is no local official on the proposed monument council. Opponents include Navajos who live nearby.

As a recent issue of High Country News explained, people of many cultures call the region home. In the 1860s, Navajos were brutally evicted from the area by U.S. troops. Within the proposed monument lands are countless sites with a rich trove of rock art and artifacts left by the ancestors of modern Zuni and Hopi Natives — sites that have been looted for years. The area is also a touchstone for Mormon settlers descended from members of the Hole in the Rock expedition, who nearly died on their pioneering journey to the region in 1879. Its mineral resources have kept it on the radar of the mining industry. A rival proposal for state control of the area is pending in Congress."

Read further, and comment: 

Bear Necessities--November 20, 2016

Nov. 20--Dec. 3  Bear Necessities

The election of Donald Trump has NOT slowed down the opposition.  Pro-monument forces are filling newspapers and TV ads with half truths and scare tactics as they push for more National Monuments.  Please, please let your voice be heard. Write, and then respond when others publish articles; follow the news whether on TV, radio, newspaper and exercise your freedom of speech.

Facts relative to the Antiquities act that could be used (Thanks Wendy Black): 

The Antiquities Act is no longer a stand-alone privilege of the POTUS (President of the U.). Since the incorporation of the National Park Service it now requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to implement the obligations that balance human and natural environments. The Antiquities Act is not supposed to be used until an inventory of private inholdings have been done and have been distinguished from lands owned and controlled by the federal government. In accordance with the FLPMA mandates, the Antiquities Act is to be identified and confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected, (not 1.9 million acres). The objects are to be situated on land owned or controlled by the federal government. The Act is limited to objects, items and structures. All others are to be in accordance with FLPMA mandates. There are six procedural requirements that are to be performed in order to enact the Antiquities Act.

1.      Scientific studies to assess the range, occurrence and proper care of objects.

2.      The Secretary is to create and publish inventories that distinguish public land from inholdings, such as; water rights, mining claims, state and private inholdings, grazing allotments, easements and rights of way.

3.      The Antiquities Act is supposed to contain the smallest area compatible with proper care of objects to be protected by said Act.

4.      The corporate or private in holders are to be notified of their rights to participate or relinquish their rights in a timely manner.

5.      Local input is to be sought in what constitutes proper care and management of the objects for protection.

6.      State and local inholdings need to be identified for tax, impaired right of way, affected water rights, safety or any other problems that may arise from premature designation.

                                                                                                                    

--I’ve updated and revised the links on my Bears Ears blog several times, and finally have a pretty good collection of newspaper e-mail addresses (copy and paste) as you send letters out.

--This article in the Huffington Post needs responses.  The headline reads: “In The Weeks Before Trump Takes Office, Obama’s Mad Dash To Save Public Lands” (scroll down to where it shows how many comments there are…click and join the discussion.)

--A similar article in the Guardian: 

--A very good link provided by Linda Patterson regarding multiple-use of lands. This was a public symposium discussing many different land issues. Two-day event with 18 different topics discussed/ video taped. Very informative, especially for those directly involved in land issues in the west. Use some of these facts as you write.

--Allowing states to regulate the energy resources on federal lands means more efficient and accountable management. States share the cost of the maintenance of federal lands and have regulatory structures to manage federal lands within their boundaries. Read More

-- Obama Exploits Native tribes to Further Extreme Environmental Agenda

--Attached is a file explaining The Federal Land Freedom Act: Empowering States to Regulate Energy Will Yield Better Economic and Environmental Results Testimony before Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources U.S. House of Representatives.  This could be the basis of a very powerful letter to the editor.  I hope several of you will write and send letters. 

--Come to the Tree for All Dec. 2-3 Wellness Center.   We will have a booth there. 

Write President Elect Donald Trump

--I encourage all citizens to write to the President Elect Donald Trump and share their concerns about land management or mismanagement, as well as other suggestions that would make America Great Again.https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/

Bear Necessities Nov. 13-20, 2016

Nov. 13 -20 Bear Essentials 

The results of this year’s election bodes well for Bears Ears and hopefully for other states who are being threatened by National Monuments.  BUT I think it is important to keep writing Secretary Jewel, President Obama, and the President elect, Donald Trump, as well as our elected officials.  It doesn’t appear that the Federal BLM Director’s e-mail is now working (Did you wear him out!?) State office shown below.

--We’d encourage you to write to the President Elect Donald Trump and share your concerns about land management, or mismanagement.  https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/

--Old tricks on old trails: Blocking roads/trails intentionally?  http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2016/11/10/extreme-greens-blockade-trails-deter-colorado-hunters-off-roaders/   

--A national monument is a heavy-handed solution for Bears Ears by Nathan Nielson

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2016/11/10/bears-ears-will-not-protected-overrunning-tourism/

(Lots of opposing comments follow the article; your views need to be heard as well.)

--Salt Lake Tribune article “fuels” things up again:  http://www.sltrib.com/news/4554899-155/energy-company-looking-to-strike-oil  (If you want to see how nasty the opposition is, go in and read the comments following this article.  Some of us have done battle there, but we are outnumbered.  We need more active participants. If that isn’t your style, then at least write to those who can make a difference.  Don’t stop now!)

--E-mail for the State BLM Office:   blm_ut_so_public_room@blm.gov

Sent tonight.  Send yours this week.

Director of Utah's BLM office: 

Don't be misled by all the hoopla and protests by environmentalists with deep pocketed friends who are trying to macro manage San Juan County. (As reported by the Salt Lake Tribune.)  First they want 1.9 acres for a National Monument, and now they want to control even land outside that designation.  County residents cannot be expected to always be the ones giving.  Compromise is a must.   

San Juan County needs revenue which can potentially come from successful drilling or mining in our county. Those royalties have helped to support our schools in the past. Only 8% of San Juan County’s 5,077,120 acres is privately owned. We have already given up 35,033,603 acres to 13 different national parks/monuments.  Federal government owns/ runs/ manages 55.5% of our state.  Free enterprise must have a presence in this part of the state. Don't back down. 

--Ranchers in Malheur County fight a proposed 2.5-million-acre national monument, which would represent 40 percent of the county’s land base.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2016/11/10/owyhee-monument-opponents-hope-trump-will-help-escape-federal-designation/ 

--Citizens must continue to remind our congressmen and local newspapers of our concerns. 

Representative Chaffetz: https://chaffetz.house.gov/contact/

Opinion letter: Cortez Sentinel: http://www.cortezjournal.com/section/Opinion/ 

Opinion letters: Moab Times: editor@moabtimes.com

(Most of what they’ve published is from the opposition – help us out here, folks.)

--Friends in West Virginia, Request our help.

I sent this to both Senators Hatch and Lee, & Rep. Chaffetz today:  

(In the process of actively fighting the proposed Bears Ears National Monument, I've made friends in other states who are concerned about similar designations.  Two of these are Randy and Kristen Sharp in W. Virginia.  They have been fighting the BIRTHPLACE OF RIVERS NATIONAL MONUMENT in West Virginia since 2012.  He wrote me today asking, "Do you think you could get your representatives in congress to introduce a bill to do away with Presidential Monuments and put those decisions in control of Congress to create them. It would put more control in local hands and create a true discussion about the facts. If we can't get it done in the next two years we may never get it done.  Randy. 

I think this would be important legislation to initiate, and return critical land decisions to "the people" instead of Non-Governmental Organizations with power and money who influence presidents.)

Big money, environmentalists and the Bears Ears story

National Monuments spread

This is old news, but "BEARS" repeating, as it is central to the tangled web of money and deceit woven by the Conservation Lands Foundation during 2016. Their millions of dollars have been channeled into hundreds of media outlets. as they attack states throughout the nation in their wanton lands grabs under the guise of protection. JW

By Amy Joi O'Donoghue@amyjoi16

Published: Aug. 4, 2016 6:15 p.m.Updated: Sept. 22, 2016 12:52 p.m.

                                                                                           SALT LAKE CITY —
 In October 2014, members of the Conservation Lands Foundation sat around a table (in  San Francisco) and discussed their campaign to bring a monument designation to southeast Utah for the region they called Bears Ears.

This wasn't a group of Native American tribal leaders from the Four Corners, but board members from an increasingly successful conservation organization who met to discuss, among other things, if it was wise to "hitch our success to the Navajo."

Many Utah Navajo are against a monument designation for Bears Ears, but the out-of-state tribal leaders behind the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition who support it insist the effort is one that is locally driven, locally supported and grass-roots in nature.

"None of the drivers of this are coming from the environmental community. It is purely Native American led. This is a Native American led effort. Any suggestion otherwise is not true," said Gavin Noyes, the executive director of Utah Dine' Bikeyah, a nonprofit, Salt Lake City organization that works to protect indigenous lands for future generations.

But the campaign is fueled in part with $20 million in donations from two key philanthropic foundations headquartered in California — the Hewlett and Packard foundations — that cite environmental protections as a key focus for the grants they award. Both foundations directed grants to groups like The Wilderness Society for the Bears Ears campaign, or for Colorado Plateau protections to the Grand Canyon Trust or to Round River Conservation Studies, of which Noyes served as director."  

Read the full story here

More recently Range Magazine also reported that the Conservation Lands Foundation stated, "should there be more attacks on the Antiquities Act in 2015, they would lead "a broad coalition of organizations that were increasingly focused on "defense".  The Wyss foundation specifically was mentioned and "had set aside funding sources specifically for that purpose."   Read this article on p. 50

‘Family farm’ has spent millions buying acres of state land

Read full article in SLC Tribune. 

My comments to article:

Wow, another open name-calling fest where so many love to sling mud. Maybe someday issues as important as these can be discussed in a more fact based platform, with less diatrite & venom. First some facts from a San Juan County school board member, (or talk to your own school board representative). "Four sections of every township was designated at Utah statehood for the purpose of supporting public schools. The State Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) has the responsibility to manage these lands that are in trust for school children in the state of Utah. The lands that do not have the potential to generate revenue [i.e. National Monuments] are sold off or traded for land that can produce revenue to support public schools. When land is sold the money from the sale is deposited into the Permanent School Fund. Interest and dividends from the fund are distributed to each public school in the state of Utah each year. Community councils that consist of school faculty and parents of students attending the school make the decision of how the SITLA money is spent." Money from SITLA sales is invested, and interest and dividends each year are distributed to schools and institutions throughout Utah. In 2014, investment funds totaled over 40 Million dollars.

So maybe you feel OK about begrudging the poorest county in the State access to funds that would enhance local schools? Perhaps you feel fine about locking up more San Juan County land without multiple use possibility? Maybe you love being the attacker of a county that only has 8% of its 5,077,120 acres privately owned? If so you probably don't understand that the wealth of a country and a county is in its land. We can't run schools, government, infrastructures on air and idealism. We too want the Cedar Mesa ruins better protected, but it doesn't take 1.9 million acres to do that. The BLM is already in charge of that public land has the responsibility of supervising it. One more layer of expensive Federal Government in the form of a monument is not going to solve the problem, it will only compound it, with less tax money available for local use. Maybe you should start a SLC fundraiser for Bluff, Monument Valley, and Montezuma Creek Schools, instead of begrudging sales from SITLA lands.

Response to High County News Article

Commentary on this article.  by Johnathan Thompson. published Oct. 16/ 2016 High Country News.

This was a well written and engaging article and the author tried hard to show us a close up view of the controversy, and the varied views of local people as we wrestle with the threat of a possible monument in this place of isolation. I am always surprised at the straws writers grasp at in their comments following such articles, as they justify their position. Fear and bias has a way of generating paranoia and exaggeration. I am also surprised at the name calling and bias that surfaces, as outsiders write about ranchers, rural America, hunters, Mormons, and others not of their inner circle. 

With that being said, let me update Johnathan's article, with some facts in this ever dynamic and changing controversy. He quotes Malcolm Lehi, a White Mesa Ute council representative who says, “It’s been far too long that us Natives have not been at the table, he added, " We’re making history.” Since that statement was made, Mr. Lehi has become history himself, as he was voted out of office recently by his own people, as was Regina White Skunk. Part of that happened because neither of them had support of those they represented in this "monumental" issue. Many Navajo and Utes are against the National Monument, because they have land allotments in the designated area and they enjoy the freedoms that they already have on this public land, such as wood gathering, hunting, grazing. They did not like being bullied into a cause they did not support.

I was so happy to see one of our old YSA friends Monte Yazzie, helping his Aunt Anna Tom in this protest. 

Despite the promises made by the Bikéyah coalition leaders, local Native Americans by and large, do not trust a federal government which has a long trail of broken promises. Using a multi-tribe coalition as banner carriers for a National Monument, was a top down strategy initiated by the Conservation Lands Foundation and their satellite environmental groups. They and their deep-pocketed foundations have played Goliath in this battle against the little guys of San Juan County. They didn't take into account the fact that conflicts exists between some of the coalition tribes, as illustrated in the article. Nor did CLF realize that freedom loving Americans, Native and Anglo alike have been taught to think, and to love their freedoms and their land. As Winston Hurst suggests, there will need to be compromise and a willingness to share the land in multiple ways if this is going to work.

Grinding Westerners Under the Federal Boot

Posted as a comment to this article in the Washington Times
by Janet Wilcox
The proposed Bears Ears National Monument is more than a burr under the saddle of rural Utah. It jeopardizes basic State's rights, and bi-passes the Constitutionally guarantee of due process through legislative means. Utah has already given enough to the Federal Government. The State of Utah covers 52,696,960 acres. We have given up 35,033,603 acres to 13 different national parks/monuments. That means the Federal government owns/ runs/ manages 66% of our state. And now enviro-nazis want more. The scenario in San Juan County is even worse. Only 8% of San Juan County’s 5,077,120 acres is privately owned.

Those with a socialistic mind set don’t seem to grasp the idea that private property rights exist in the proposed Bears Ears monument area. Some areas in that coveted land do NOT meet the definition of “public lands”, including 43 grazing allotments, 661 water-right infrastructures, 151,000 acres of state trust land, 18,000 acres of private property, and hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure which are granted a RS2477 right-of-way. Please help us in this David vs. Goliath fight. Write, call, protest with us. savebearsears.com 

Heck, Yes, There's Collusion

"Ranchers, farmers, rural people and local leaders in Western states have long suspected collusion between extreme environmentalists and officials in the highest offices of the federal government. And to be honest, the Administration, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, and hard-left ‘conservation’ groups have not been shy about their cozy relationships. But within one of the numerous WikiLeaks email ‘dumps’ from the inbox of John Podesta, is a disturbing new point of collusion; that with the campaign chief for the Democrat nominee–who has not yet been elected.

John Podesta is known as one of the most active and radical operatives connected to both the Obama Administration and the Clintons, and the email thread between himself and Mike Matz of the PEW Charitable Trusts, makes it clear that the push to use national monuments to freeze millions of acres through executive orders, is a planned and coordinated attack on the West, and will not end if Hillary Clinton is elected."    Read more.

Comb Ridge Sale: Shame on Who?

Sent to Des News, SJR and Times Independent   10/27/16

     Yes, there should be shame, but not because STATE SCHOOL TRUST LANDS were sold to a private bidder, but because extreme environmentalists don’t want to share any land with anyone except Conservation Land Foundation devotees.  They are using everything in their power and in their banks to force local Native Americans, Anglos, and Hispanics away from a land they chose to live in, here in San Juan County.  These are families with local roots to San Juan, who didn’t migrate to more enticing lands in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico centuries ago.  

     Unlike the opposition who follows the dictates of the CLF, these locals oppose a National Monument because the CLF does not want free enterprise, access to public lands, grazing rights, or a strong tax base in San Juan County. They don’t care about jobs and improved schools They are against private enterprise and they would be delighted if everyone moved away. 

     Moreover, CLF followers don’t want to share any of the 1.9 million acres they greedily seek in this current “campaign” for National Monuments, which involves not only Utah, but Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, California.  (Hawaii, Maine have already been checked off their bucket list.)

      The State of Utah covers 52,696,960 acres. They have already given up 35,033,603 acres to 13 different national parks/monuments.  That means the Federal government owns/ runs/ manages 66.4% of our state. And they say Utah is greedy?!  The scenario in San Juan County is even worse. Only 8% of San Juan County’s 5,077,120 acres is privately owned.    

    Those with a socialistic mind set don’t seem to grasp the idea that private property rights exist in the proposed Bears Ears monument area.  Some areas in that coveted land do NOT meet the definition of “public lands”, including 43 grazing allotments, 661 water-right infrastructures, 151,000 acres of state trust land, 18,000 acres of private property, and hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure which are granted a RS2477 right-of-way. 

     This leads us to the most recent whining of the week--Comb Ridge.  The actual Comb Ridge wilderness consists of 17,400 acres; HOWEVER, adjacent to Comb Ridge proper exists SITLA land. SITLA land is not "public land", it is STATE land. Even though local people have long used it for their personal playground, they were trespassing.  

     Two weeks ago 391 acres of SITLA land were sold by the State to the highest bidder.  That land would be .02% of the total Comb Ridge acreage.  And the playground bullies don’t want to share even that pinpoint of land with anyone else.  In the bigger more coveted landscape of 1.9 million acres, 391 acres comprises only .0002 %.  Additional SITLA lands take up another .079 % of the ill-conceived 1.9 million acre monument.  I suppose there will be whining about that too, when legitimate companies who pay taxes and support schools are able to purchase and utilize state lands.  Shame on YOU for not being willing to share.  Is compromise not in your vocabulary?

Janet Wilcox  Blanding, Utah