National monuments should be left as is
Allowing mining, logging would decimate the values the monuments are protecting
In April, President Trump issued an order to determine whether to rescind or make changes to 27 national monuments including New Mexico’s Rio Grande del Norte (RGDN) and Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks (OMDP).
During the comment period, unsurprisingly, both enjoyed widespread support from New Mexicans. City councils, religious leaders, county commissions, tribes, land grant heirs, ranchers, hunters and anglers, business owners and others reiterated their enthusiastic endorsement of the monuments. New Mexico had the most comments submitted per capita of any state (97,000) with nearly 93 percent of the comments received for OMDP and 98 percent of those for RGDN wanting no changes.
When Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke paid a visit to OMDP in July, he chose to spend most of his time meeting with the few opponents of the monument behind closed doors. He snubbed 600 supporters who filled the Las Cruces Convention Center and waited in vain for him to show them the respect to hear their thoughts. He didn’t even bother to visit RGDN.
Zinke made his secret recommendations to President Trump on Aug. 24 but by Sept. 17 they were leaked to the press. The report was cynical, disingenuous and Orwellian.
It is based on a willful misreading of the Antiquities Act and its application over the last century, and attempts to narrow the criteria around which monuments can be created.
The review claims it was conducted to “ensure that the local voice was heard” when in reality New Mexico’s monuments happened after more than a decade of consultation with all stakeholders.
The review states on the one hand that monuments “curtail economic growth” and on the other complains that economic growth associated with increased visitation is somehow an unwelcome burden.
It acknowledges that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of the monuments but whines that the community response was the result of a “well-orchestrated national campaign” organized by nongovernmental organizations. Apparently, the energy industry — with three paid lobbyists in D.C. for each member of Congress — just can’t get a fair shake.
The report asserts that monuments restrict “traditional uses” which it defines as “grazing, timber production, mining, fishing, hunting, recreation and other cultural uses.” With respect to actual traditional uses he is dead wrong. With respect to commercial logging and mining operations, since when are they a “traditional use?”
As Sen. Martin Heinrich highlighted in a Sept. 19 hearing, the report claims that roads were closed and ranchers have stopped ranching because of the monument; that OMDP abuts the Mexican border; and that hunting and fishing rights have been hurt.
False, wrong, incorrect and untrue. If the facts don’t support the conclusion you want to make, apparently it is OK to just make stuff up.
Strange? Perhaps, unless this whole exercise has nothing to do with national monuments or public sentiment and everything to do with political favors.
While this review never should have been ordered, the fact that the recommendations do not include boundary reductions as anticipated must be seen as a result of the overwhelming public outcry.
While we’re happy about that, Zinke recommends opening them to mining and logging — commercial activities that would decimate the very cultural, historic and natural resource values that the monuments intend to protect.
We call on President Trump to side with voters rather than the radical proposals of Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, DC lobbyists and special interests.
The Antiquities Act has been an important conservation tool used by presidents of both parties for over 100 years. We are prepared to take legal action if any harm is done so that our monuments, and the integrity of the act will endure.