The Bears Ears National Monument rollback, although upsetting, has reinforced a belief I hold about this ongoing land debate: While the issue stems from how stakeholders value and conceptualize the land differently, it lingers because describing them is nearly impossible.
The recreation addicts, nature lovers, and Native American tribes see every juniper tree and jackrabbit as part of a holistic, spiritual, environmentally rich landscape. This is evident in Patagonia’s homepage stating “The President Stole Your Land,” and in how the Bears Ears Coalition passionately described the area in their proposition.
Alternatively, many Utah citizens, congressmen, energy developers, and now President Trump see the area as a diverse opportunity that could appease the needs of many. Republican Congressman Rob Bishop’s Public Lands Initiative drafted last year divided the same land into National Conservation Areas and energy exploration zones.
Their rhetoric implied that this was simply a compromise: an area of this scale? Surely everyone can have a piece. This seems to be President Trump’s line of thought too, as he extends protection only to separate features like the Bears Ears Buttes. To them, it is unreasonable that the entire area have federal protection, while to monument supporters, anything less than complete protection is unacceptable.
As humans, we encounter limits of our own rhetoric, and in this case, both sides are unable to articulate their own conceptualization, preventing any capacity for reconciliation.
If we want a chance at a solution, we all must find the words to describe our connection to place.
Amy Katz
Durango
