Trump will visit Utah to change Bears Ears and Grand Staircase national monuments

^^^ #FakeNews #FearMongering #StiringThePot

A land rush? Really?!? I bet not one legitimate claim is filed.

The land reverts back to the same rules as a year ago before Bears Ears was created. There are about one hundred good reasons there will be no land rush, they are the same reasons there was not a land rush before Bears Ears.

FWIW - nearly all Federal land operates under the same 1872 mining laws, and yes you can still stake a claim, but then you must actually begin working the site and extracting valuable ore.

Back in high school a friend and I actually had a mining claim up Big Cottonwood Canyon, after the novelty wore off maintaining the claim was more trouble and money than it was worth, which is exactly what happens with most these types of claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

A modern land run? Trump move opens Utah to mining claims under 1872 law


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw federal protections from millions of acres of Utah wilderness will reopen much of the iconic terrain to gold, silver, copper, and uranium land claims under a Wild West-era mining law, according to federal officials.

Starting at 6 a.m. on Feb. 2 – the moment Trump’s proclamation reducing the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments takes effect – private citizens and companies will be allowed to stake claims for hard rock mining in a process governed by the General Mining Law of 1872, according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

The process for staking a claim remains much as it did during the Gold Rush: A prospector hammers four poles into the ground corresponding to the four points of a parcel that can be as big as 20 acres, and attaches a written description of the claim onto one of them. A prospector then has 30 days to record the claim at the local BLM ....

more
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FK1MA

---

uhhhhhhh......this shit again? You're trolling now, right?

This topic has been addressed ad nauseum on so many levels. But you just refuse to see anything else besides a doomsday scenario. Catastrophize much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

^^^ #FakeNews #FearMongering #StiringThePot

A land rush? Really?!? I bet not one legitimate claim is filed.

The land reverts back to the same rules as a year ago before Bears Ears was created. There are about one hundred good reasons there will be no land rush, they are the same reasons there was not a land rush before Bears Ears.

FWIW - nearly all Federal land operates under the same 1872 mining laws, and yes you can still stake a claim, but then you must actually begin working the site and extracting valuable ore. Back in high school a friend and I actually had so mining claim up Big Cottonwood Canyon, after the novelty wore off maintaining the claim was more trouble and money than it was worth, which is exactly what happens with most these types of claims.

---

^^^THIS

Get some education outside of Reuters. For once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

uhhhhhhh......this shit again? You're trolling now, right?

This topic has been addressed ad nauseum on so many levels. But you just refuse to see anything else besides a doomsday scenario. Catastrophize much?

---

:crazy:

uhh ... i posted an article from reuters, rock. you claiming what the article says is false? i don't believe i've made any personal statements, but i know folks around here like to read a lot into things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Get some education outside of Reuters. For once.

---

i'm always interested in your opinion rock.


(as per etiquette, i only posted the intro paragraphs to the article but it alludes to some of what you've said previously)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

i'm always interested in your opinion rock.


(as per etiquette, i only posted the intro paragraphs to the article but it alludes to some of what you've said previously)

---

You're killin' me, Smalls.

In my book, dropping a link to a controversial topic and then running away without providing your opinion or any other narrative is classic troll behavior. Like lobbing a golf ball into a hornet's nest and then giggling and running away before the ensuing storm of stingers catches up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

You're killin' me, Smalls.

In my book, dropping a link to a controversial topic and then running away without providing your opinion or any other narrative is classic troll behavior. Like lobbing a golf ball into a hornet's nest and then giggling and running away before the ensuing storm of stingers catches up to you.

---

or it's something considerably less sinister like posting an update on a topic. i didn't realize how sensationally something that commonly occurs on this site would be perceived.

i have appreciated all of your input on the topic. all i can tell you on this one, short of speculation or discussing alternatives to decisions that have already been set in motion, is ... time will tell. i am certainly interested in seeing your thoughts on the matter play out over the next decade+ and that starts feb 2.

I agree with both you guys. I personally never post links, but if I did I'd certainly comment on it.

There are a bunch of people living like hippies in the San Luis Valley here in Colorado...it's down by Alamosa. They're MILES from town but live in tee-pees and dilapidated lean-tos. All of the land there is private, so they either bought a chunk or are renting. A lot of them living off the grid. There was a big segment on the local news about it a couple months ago.

That kind of thing happening near Blanding or Escalante isn't likely, but some big company tearing into giant chunks is a nightmare for the pessimist crowd. Hayduke, man...

Time will tell, but I'd bet nothing much is going to change there. Personally, I'd like it to slow down a bit...if they were to start restricting camping around Cedar Mesa or off the HRR, that would suck.

As I have already stated...numerous times before...if there was anything of value in the way of exploitable minerals in the area of Bears Ears, it would have already been mined by somebody at some point before now.


Why stefan insists there is going to be this mad rush of prospectors and greedy land grabbers snapping up claims and paving paradise to put up a parking lot at high noon on February 2nd is beyond me. I'm bookmarking this thread and marking my calendar for mid-2019 so that I can bring it back up and ask howcome there's no gold and silver mining in the Abajo Mountains? Or howcome there isn't a brand new uranium mine in the Comb Ridge?

I can assert my stance with 100% certitude. If you knew who my employer was you'd understand why I am so confident...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Get some education outside of Reuters. For once.

---

Hey, Reuters posted one of my videos, so they're legit :lol8:


Here's a thought; If anybody is truly thinking the mining industry will take off in this area, and if they're smart, they would be investing in the mining industry here. After all, it's going to go crazy, right? It's a great time to hop on board. Make money from your enemies! Invest in Bears Ears Mining Co.

Damnit I just thought of a great LLC company name, be right back

^^^Hells yeah! The Bears Ears Mining Co., LLC -- There's not much in the way of precious metals, but I hear there's a fairly large bitcoin deposit on the Northeastern flank of the Abajo Mountains...:naughty:

https://goldrushexpeditions.com/mining-claims-for-sale/

Here you go. Make your dreams come true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uintafly

https://goldrushexpeditions.com/mining-claims-for-sale/

Here you go. Make your dreams come true.

---

Hmmmm...not a single claim in Utah. That's crazy!! I would've expected to see at least a half dozen in the Dark Canyon Wilderness area, or maybe on the outskirts of Blanding.


Personally, I liked the following claim:

Attachment 88805

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

...Invest in Bears Ears Mining Co. Damnit I just thought of a great LLC company name, be right back

---

Replacement name for Bogley? I'd bet you get a TON of new, site visitors with a website name like that! :roflol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tallsteve

Replacement name for Bogley? I'd bet you get a TON of new, site visitors with a website name like that! :roflol:

---

Bears Ear Non Outdoorsy Community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

Bears Ear Non Outdoorsy Community.

---

With a description up top that says "We hate the outdoors".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

"We hate the outdoors".

---

"We hate the outdoors, In Fracking We Trust"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirkHammergate

"We hate the outdoors, In Fracking We Trust"

---

We hate the outdoors only if there's a Republican in office

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

As I have already stated...numerous times before...if there was anything of value in the way of exploitable minerals in the area of Bears Ears, it would have already been mined by somebody at some point before now.

---

i hear you loud and clear, but value can change over time. for the first time in nearly 50 years, the US is now producing 10 million barrels of oil per day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Why stefan insists there is going to be this mad rush of prospectors and greedy land grabbers snapping up claims and paving paradise to put up a parking lot

---

i've not insisted anything (and neither did the article). you're just reading a lot into things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

on February 2nd is beyond me. I'm bookmarking this thread and marking my calendar for mid-2019 so that I can bring it back up and ask howcome there's no gold and silver mining in the Abajo Mountains? Or howcome there isn't a brand new uranium mine in the Comb Ridge?

---

significance of the date is the date of the change in land management policy---nothing necessarily imminent. my interest lies in impact to the land over many decades of time. if what you say is true, then it will play out over the next 50 years and we'll see it. you certainly make a strong case. but, you must understand, for me, when it comes to the long term, there is a still a question mark.

So what happened to the huge lines to register mining claims that some clueless dumbass at Reuters predicted would occur on February 2nd?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

So what happened to the huge lines to register mining claims that some clueless dumbass at Reuters predicted would occur on February 2nd?

---

the article doesn't say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

the article doesn't say that.

---

The headline pretty much says exactly that...

"A modern land run? Trump move opens Utah to mining claims under 1872 law."

The rest of the article actually went downhill after that with bullshit, lies, and fear mongering mixed with some facts....

FWIW - No, zilch, none, nada, zero mining claims have been filed so far in any of the land stripped from Bears Ears or Escalante...

Which is exactly what those of us involved in Utah mining predicted.

And no legitimate claims will be filed, however I'm waiting for one of the tree huggers, forest fairies or rock lickers to file a claim to make a point as it only costs $155 to file, which is good for one year.

Because Trump bought all of the mining rights using his Presidential privilege and gave them to Putin, he be Putin his equipment in the ground

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46252402&ni...-claims-leases

Hmmmm....pretty much says almost verbatim what I've been claiming all along.

Oil and uranium prices are really low now, so even if reserves are known or will be known, they probably wouldn't be economically viable. Those areas are pretty remote.

That doesn't mean the prices will always stay low however.

We need oil and other minerals, but if the price does go up, hopefully it can be done outside the sensitive areas and be done responsibly.

I remember the same argument being used for areas adjacent to the High Uintas Wilderness area a few decades ago. Some areas were still torn up when oil either rose or was expected to rise and it really wasn't done responsibly. An oil company (I'm not sure which one) really ripped up the area around Middle Fork Hayden Fork (the next drainage west of Christmas Meadows), which was formerly roadless at that point and they left big metal signs all over the places and constructed the road in a very intrusive manner, while obliterating the existing hiking and horsepacking trail.

Mining is a very important and very essential industry. Just like politicians though, sometimes it's hard to trust that the mining companies will do the right thing.

^^^except for the simple fact there is no oil under Bears Ears or Escalante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

^^^except for the simple fact there is no oil under Bears Ears or Escalante.

---

Would you like to bet on that?

https://www.americangeosciences.org/...resources-utah

***insert eyeroll here***

Let me know when the drill rigs start rolling into town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

Would you like to bet on that?

https://www.americangeosciences.org/...resources-utah

---

That map doesn't appear to show actual reserves, just wells. The overwhelming majority of the wells shown in the former Bears Ears NM area are dry holes. I spot checked a few of the wells that are not listed as dry holes, and their status is "Plugged and Abandoned."

I've hiked all over that entire part of the state. Lots of backcountry stuff. Within the last 100 years people have been all over the place...you'll find equipment, shacks, roads and tracks, old trash and camps, parking areas, old drill holes, remnants of mining operations...I'd like to see a map of every spot humans have impacted within that time. I'm sure it would look like somebody vomited all over it. I suspect it looked that way as well when the Anasazi where runin' around.

The only thing that matters to me is that I'm able to pull off the road damn near anywhere and throw down a tent. I'm not going to worry one bit about how the people 50 years from now are going to be managing the place...good luck to the future , man.

I care about the place right now, that's for sure. It's an Indian Disneyland and I spend time there every year. May actually be there next week, in fact. I don't feel that the place is threatened, and I pity the people that fret over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46252402&ni...-claims-leases

Hmmmm....pretty much says almost verbatim what I've been claiming all along.

---

I just thought of an incredible money making opportunity for these Bears Ears area mining claims, if there are any left available.

We (meaning you) would buy a claim, knowing there's not much in the ground worth extracting, and then we start a campaign to "Pay miners not to mine Bears Ears". We (meaning me) would start collecting money from those who want to keep Bears Ears free from mining. Environmentalists would save the area, as we would painstakingly agree to not cut into the life giving soil, and the miners would win too because they're still getting their blood money, or racism money, whatever it's called now, as long as it's got them US Presidents on them bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

***insert eyeroll here***

Let me know when the drill rigs start rolling into town.

---

You'll be waiting for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

I just thought of an incredible money making opportunity for these Bears Ears area mining claims, if there are any left available.

We (meaning you) would buy a claim, knowing there's not much in the ground worth extracting, and then we start a campaign to "Pay miners not to mine Bears Ears". We (meaning me) would start collecting money from those who want to keep Bears Ears free from mining. Environmentalists would save the area, as we would painstakingly agree to not cut into the life giving soil, and the miners would win too because they're still getting their blood money, or racism money, whatever it's called now, as long as it's got them US Presidents on them bills.

---

Actually something similar to this was done in the Sierra's. Guys would stake a claim and then build nice cabins and summer homes on the claim. They had no intention of mining, it was just a cheap loophole to gain control over a great building lot. The practice is now illegal but I'd have to look up exactly what they did to stop it. I know in Utah in addition to the $155 a year you also have to do some actual mining to maintain the claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

in Utah in addition to the $155 a year you also have to do some actual mining to maintain the claim.

---

Yep. Utah sends out inspectors once a month to oversee mining activities. If there's no mining, the permits get revoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

The headline pretty much says exactly that...

"A modern land run? Trump move opens Utah to mining claims under 1872 law."

The rest of the article actually went downhill after that with bullshit, lies, and fear mongering mixed with some facts....

---

nah. you got it wrong.

first, after "land run" in the title there is a question mark which means it's posing a question, not making a claim.

the first 6 paragraphs of the article report plainly about date of policy change, mining claims, and that the BLM is preparing maps. (doesn't suggest people are going to line up nor is there any fear mongering).

then it says

URANIUM RUSH? MAYBE NOT

and proceeds to list a few parties (including Energy Fuels) that one might expect to have an interest instead indicating their lack of interest in claims. which means the article is suggesting the answer to the question "a modern land run?" appears more likely to be "not," which is the opposite of what you suggested the article was saying.

i'm guessing you'll call any reporting of conservation groups' concerns "fear mongering" but please point out what in the remainder of the article is "bullshit" and "lies." i'm interested.

judging an article based on its headline (or how your interpretation of the headline pushes your buttons) can lead to trouble. i don't have strong feelings about this article. just posted it to mark the change in land management policy occurring two days later.

^^^YAWN^^^

Call me when the drillers and miners start rolling into town.... better pack a big lunch because it's going to be a looooong wait..

#FakeNews #FearMongers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stefan

nah. you got it wrong.

first, after "land run" in the title there is a question mark which means it's posing a question, not making a claim.

the first 6 paragraphs of the article report plainly about date of policy change, mining claims, and that the BLM is preparing maps. (doesn't suggest people are going to line up nor is there any fear mongering).

then it says

URANIUM RUSH? MAYBE NOT

and proceeds to list a few parties (including Energy Fuels) that one might expect to have an interest instead indicating their lack of interest in claims. which means the article is suggesting the answer to the question "a modern land run?" appears more likely to be "not," which is the opposite of what you suggested the article was saying.

i'm guessing you'll call any reporting of conservation groups' concerns "fear mongering" but please point out what in the remainder of the article is "bullshit" and "lies." i'm interested.

judging an article based on its headline (or how your interpretation of the headline pushes your buttons) can lead to trouble. i don't have strong feelings about this article. just posted it to mark the change in land management policy occurring two days later.

---

OK, I'll admit it. I didn't read the article. I judged the book by its cover. A knee jerk reaction. My apologies.

But I'll acknowledge that I was acting rashly, and thank you for coming in after the fact to point out the fine print.

Zinke to visit Salt Lake expo Friday for 'major' conservation announcement

SALT LAKE CITY — Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke will once again visit Utah, making a special appearance at the Western Hunting & Conservation Expo on Friday at the Salt Palace Convention Center.

A release from the U.S. Department of Interior said Zinke will make a "major conservation announcement" and take questions from the media.

This will be Zinke's third visit to the Beehive State in under a year, with him first visiting last May to tour the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase national monuments as part of a review directed by President Donald Trump.

When Trump visited last December to issue proclamations downsizing the monuments, Zinke spoke at the state Capitol.

Zinke described the Bears Ears region as "drop-dead gorgeous" country and expressed concern over the size of the 1.35 million-acre monument declared by former President Barack Obama in December of 2016. He noted similar concerns about the size of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument at 1.9 million acres and devoted much of his time hearing concerns from Garfield and Kane county leaders.

The accompanying reductions are under legal challenge by multiple organizations.

He is also behind a proposed massive reorganization of his department to streamline the various functions of multiple branches, including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.

During briefings he has held with multiple organizations, he's said some agencies would be better headquartered in the West such as Denver and Salt Lake City.

Last Friday, the Interior Department's associate deputy James Cason and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, hosted a meeting involving dozens of rural county commissioners from multiple states to hear concerns and detail the possible reorganization of the department.

Bishop, who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, and all five of his subcommittee chairmen, sent a letter to Zinke on Jan. 31 applauding the proposed reorganization plans.

The hunting and conservation expo began Thursday and continues through Sunday.https://beacon.deseretconnect.com/be...&pid=4&notrack

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46256711&nid=757&title=zinke-to-visit-salt-lake-expo-friday-for-major-conservation-announcement

a little light reading ... first link leads to the documents. red highlighting just to highlight escalante.

Quote:

---

Oil, [Gas, and Coal] Was Central in Decision to Shrink [Monuments], Emails Show
NYT

WASHINGTON — Even before President Trump officially opened his high-profile review last spring of federal lands protected as national monuments, the Department of Interior was focused on the potential for oil and gas exploration at a protected Utah site, internal agency documents show.

The debate started as early as March 2017, when an aide to Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, asked a senior Interior Department official to consider reduced boundaries for Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah to remove land that contained oil and natural gas deposits that had been set aside to help fund public schools.

“Please see attached for a shapefile and pdf of a map depicting a boundary change for the southeast portion of the Bears Ears monument,” said the March 15 email from Senator Hatch’s office. Adopting this map would “resolve all known mineral conflicts,” the email said, referring to oil and gas sites on the land that the state’s public schools wanted to lease out to bolster funds.

The map that Mr. Hatch’s office provided, which was transmitted about a month before Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke publicly initiated his review of national monuments, was incorporated almost exactly into the much larger reductions President Trump announced in December, shrinking Bears Ears by 85 percent.

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has been focused on expanding oil, gas and coal development and sweeping away Obama-era environmental initiatives that the administration contends hurt America’s energy industry. The debate over shrinking national monuments sparked a fierce political battle, now being fought in the courts, over how much land needs federal protection.

Mr. Zinke has said that the agency review process made no presumptions about the outcomes. “We want to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard,” Mr. Zinke said at a news conference in May during a visit to Bears Ears.

Most of the deliberations took place behind closed doors. The internal Interior Department emails — more than 25,000 pages in total — were obtained by The New York Times after it sued the agency in federal court with the assistance of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale University Law School. The lawsuit cited the agency’s failure to respond to an open records request in August asking for internal records related to the deliberations.

The bulk of the documents made public by the Interior Department — about 20,000 pages of them — detail the yearslong effort during the Obama administration to create new monuments, including input from environmental groups, Indian tribes, state officials and members of Congress. President Barack Obama created or expanded 29 national monuments during his tenure, representing a total of about 553 million acres, more than any of his predecessors.

The remaining pages, a total of approximately 4,500 files, relate to the Trump administration’s reconsideration of these actions by Mr. Obama and other presidents.

Heather Swift, the Interior Department spokeswoman, said in a statement that, in reviewing monuments, “The Secretary took into consideration the views of a variety of interested parties, such as members of congress, governors, state and tribal leaders, and the public, including the views of those parties as to possible revised monument boundaries. One such organization that weighed in was the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) which is responsible for funding so the children of Utah receive a quality education.”

Matthew Whitlock, a spokesman for Senator Hatch, said that the senator has been involved in discussions around Bears Ears for years. He emphasized that some of the land had long been designated to help fund local schools, and that Senator Hatch’s interest was to protect the school funding.

The internal Interior Department emails and memos also show the central role that concerns over gaining access to coal reserves played in the decision by the Trump administration to shrink the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by about 47 percent, to just over 1 million acres.

Mr. Zinke’s staff developed a series of estimates on the value of coal that could potentially be mined from a section of Grand Staircase called the Kaiparowits plateau. As a result of Mr. Trump’s action, major parts of the area are no longer a part of the national monument.

“The Kaiparowits plateau, located within the monument, contains one of the largest coal deposits in the United States,” an Interior Department memo, issued in the spring of 2017, said. About 11.36 billion tons are “technologically recoverable,” it projected.

From the start of the Interior Department review process, agency officials directed staff to figure out how much coal, oil and natural gas — as well as grass for cattle grazing and timber — had been put essentially off limits, or made harder to access, by the decision to designate the areas as national monuments.

One memo, for example, asked Interior staff to prepare a report on each national monument, with a yellow highlighter on the documents emphasizing the need to examine in detail “annual production of coal, oil, gas and renewables (if any) on site; amount of energy transmission infrastructure on site (if any).” It was followed up by a reminder to staff in June to also look at how the decision to create new National Monuments in Utah might have hurt area mines.

“Sorry about this, but this came from DOI late yesterday,” Timothy Fisher, the leader of the National Monuments and Consetion Areas program at Interior wrote to his colleagues, referring to the Department of Interior headquarters in Washington. “Are there mines or processing facilities near or adjacent to a National Monument?” he wrote. He also asked how the protection of the federal lands may have affected mining.

In another email exchange, in May, two Bureau of Land Management officials said that Mr. Zinke’s chief of staff for policy, Downey Magallanes, had phoned to ask for information on a uranium mill in or near the Bears Ears monument. The request sought “economic data to the extent available,” as well as grazing and hunting maps.

And on July 17, Ms. Magallanes and Mr. Zinke’s counselor for energy policy, Vincent DeVito, met with representatives of a uranium mining company. The company, Energy Fuels Resources Inc., said its representatives hoped to discuss its White Mesa uranium mill as well as the Daneros uranium mine, both adjacent to the Bears Ears monument.

In addition to Paul Goranson, a top executive at Energy Fuels Resources, the meeting included Mary Bono, a former Republican congresswoman from California; and Andrew Wheeler, then a lobbyist at the firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting and now awaiting confirmation to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ms. Swift, the Interior Department spokeswoman, said that no uranium mine or milling operations were located within the boundaries of either the original or modified Bears Ears National Monument.

The debate over oil and gas reserves below the ground in Bears Ears started during the Obama administration, the documents show, with officials from Utah State Board of Education writing to the Interior Department objecting to the plan to designate the area as a national monument.

Before Utah became a state, in 1896, the federal government granted so-called trust lands to support state institutions, like the public schools, given that nearly 70 percent of the land in the state is federally controlled.

The state has generated more than $1.7 billion in revenue from the trust lands to support public schools, mostly by selling off mineral rights and allowing private companies to extract oil or gas. The Bears Ears National Monument created by President Obama in 2016 included about 110,000 acres of these trust lands, eliminating the potential for resource sales, the state said.

John Andrews, associate director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, which oversees the lands designated for school funding, acknowledged that the new Bears Ears boundaries approved by Mr. Trump, which reduced the land removed from the trust’s management to about 22,000 acres, reflected his group’s request to exclude trust lands from federal protection.

1COMMENTBut he noted that Mr. Trump ultimately reduced the monument by a much larger amount than his organization had sought.
“Obviously they were looking at facts other than the ones we had raised, we assume,” he said.

Mr. Whitlock, the spokesman for Mr. Hatch, said, “Senator Hatch is grateful these emails have been released because they make very clear that his priority in addressing the Bears Ears situation was looking out for the people of Utah.”

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/c...-monument.html