Talk:Bears Ears National Monument

Suggested section
In light of recent news and attempts to nullify Bears Ears, it would be helpful to include a section titled 'Controversies' that details the first-ever plans to remove a national monument, and the controversy behind these sentiments. Silamave (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Great minds think alike. I've done it.  Smallchief (talk  17:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article states that the President of the USA cannot unilaterally reverse the establishment of the Bears Ears NM, which is true. But the Presidential Order of April 26, 2017 does not attempt to reverse the establishment of BENM at all. It calls for "review" of that and many other progressive orders under the Antiquities Act. The article should reflect this. While perhaps obscure, this EO clearly paves the way for opening lands and resources to commercial exploitation and other, possibly irreversible, moves backward in time, in my opinion. David Spector (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with David. At least on the surface, there is no indication this is an attempt to "nullify" the monument. Rather, the EO states that a number of monuments (those designated within the last 21 years) should be reviewed to determine if any adjustments need to (or should) be made. We need to make sure the artcile accurately reflects the reality, and doesn't move into fear-mongering. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Providing context, history
Working on developing some of these areas.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More content on pre-history
 * More content on Native American Tribes historically and in recent political engagement.
 * Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (BEITC)
 * Their 2015 proposal has content that can be added to this article


 * More detail on Utah Public Lands Initiative (UPLI) as related documents provide details on issues.


 * Increasing wikilinks in this article and to this article
 * SUMA

Interim report PDF available
You can see it at File:Interim Report Pursuant to Executive Order 13792 from Secretary Zinke 20170610.pdf. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bears Ears National Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170221210520/https://www.nps.gov/NHL/find/statelists/ut/UT.pdf to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=555&ResourceType=District
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/arch-sw-v22-no2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/arch-sw-v22-no2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/bear-ears-fact-sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Controversially"
The "controversially reduced" is appropriate because the move is currently under legal challenge - several groups have sued in federal court arguing that the reduction is ultra vires because the Antiquities Act does not explicitly authorize presidents to shrink national monuments. Legal scholars view this as a strong argument but no court has ever clearly ruled on it. No such challenge was ever leveled at the declaration of the monument, because it was clearly authorized by the Antiquities Act. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Rivertorch FIREWATER  10:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. It is a classic example of a contentious label. I am no fan of Trump, but the original designation by Obama could equally be described as controversial, based on opposition to it. See this article, for example. We should just report the dispute from a neutral point of view. --hippo43 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the word "controversially," I have appended a phrase which clearly denotes the consensus legal view of the act as illegal and noting that it is being challenged in court. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a much better way to go. However, "consensus legal view" is unsourced and premature (clearly the administration thought it was legal enough), so I've re-worded it to just "an act currently being challenged in court". What do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, not acceptable. There are a myriad of sources cited here which discuss the legal case against the illegal reduction, and the fact that the Trump administration thinks anything is legal is evidence of nothing more than their own incompetence. The cited sources directly support that the rollback is "widely viewed as" illegal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As my attempt at a compromise was rejected, I have returned the article to the prior consensus version;, you need to discuss here and gain consensus before implementing any proposed change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I was quite disappointed by this article. Wanted to read neutral and up-to-date information, but here it is not only outdated (Trump elect-president??) and extremely unbalance ("reactions" almost completely con, nothing about environmentalists and acheologists protests ect. Extremely disapointing and not appropriate for WP standards 47.71.36.247 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Feel free to update it.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * such stupid remarks dont help. I am a reader, not author, and when I try to help by remarking problems, its most irritating and unsatisfactory to get "do it yourself".
 * If you can write a comment, you can edit. We’re all volunteers. Feel free to propose changes.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

11,000 acres added by Trump
I haven't been able to find any sources which specify where the 11,000 acres added by Trump actually reside. However, from comparing the two maps in this article, it's clear that the area comprises the eastern edge of Indian Creek Unit, including the area surrounding Newspaper Rock. Just thought I would share that in case anyone's curious. Nosferattus (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)