Chat
How do they know? I'm just curious because I've read SO many hysterical and even completely untrue articles about this decision. Why are oil companies only just now interested in this piece of land? It wasn't designated a Nat'l Monument until a couple of years ago. What has changed in the last two years to make exploitation suddenly feasible and even appealing? Also, since the land is still under Federal control, any resource recovery will still fall under the various rules applicable to public land under the FS, BLM, and EPA. I was personally appalled by the sheer size of the land grab in the Bears Ears monument designation. I had a feeling locals would be furious, and from most of what I've heard they were. Designating anything as "National Monument" can make land completely unusable for economic pursuits which puts a burden on locals since there often isn't enough private land in their area to scratch a living off of. It can even restrict a lot of recreational activities to which locals are accustomed (hunting, 4-wheeling, ATVing). With an area as large as Bears Ears, if motorized access is curtailed then the area becomes essentially inaccessible to most people. I tend to think downsizing it was a good decision.
Edit: I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with abusing the area. Any resource extraction (if it actually happens) needs to be done responsibly and not in places popular with hikers, hunters, fishermen, etc. But in an area larger than the state of Delaware, I'm sure there is ample room for all parties to conduct their activities without getting in each other's hair. I'm thinking goat packers should be pleased with the reduction. Goats are not welcome in most (or perhaps any?) National Monuments. I've always thought Capitol Reef was way too big as well and I was happy to see it cut in half. There's nothing whatever wrong with setting aside some extra special places, but some of the government's actions have been downright greedy, and unfortunately they don't always do a very good job of managing their acquisitions either.
Edit: I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with abusing the area. Any resource extraction (if it actually happens) needs to be done responsibly and not in places popular with hikers, hunters, fishermen, etc. But in an area larger than the state of Delaware, I'm sure there is ample room for all parties to conduct their activities without getting in each other's hair. I'm thinking goat packers should be pleased with the reduction. Goats are not welcome in most (or perhaps any?) National Monuments. I've always thought Capitol Reef was way too big as well and I was happy to see it cut in half. There's nothing whatever wrong with setting aside some extra special places, but some of the government's actions have been downright greedy, and unfortunately they don't always do a very good job of managing their acquisitions either.