Bears Ears National Monument, a landscape etched with the stories of millennia, is defined not only by its dramatic mesas and deep canyons, but also by its cartographic representation. The Bears Ears National Monument map is more than just a geographical guide; it’s a visual embodiment of a complex history, a battleground for competing interests, and a testament to the ongoing debate surrounding land management in the American West. Understanding the evolution of this map, the features it highlights, and the controversies it represents is crucial to grasping the full significance of Bears Ears.
A Shifting Landscape: The Original Proclamation and its Initial Map
The story of the Bears Ears National Monument map begins with President Barack Obama’s proclamation on December 28, 2016. This proclamation, born from years of advocacy by a coalition of five Native American tribes – the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Indian Tribe – designated 1.35 million acres of southeastern Utah as a national monument. The accompanying map, a crucial component of the proclamation, visually outlined the boundaries of this protected area.
This initial map was not simply a randomly drawn polygon. It was carefully crafted to encompass areas of significant cultural, historical, and archaeological value to the tribes. The map included:
- Cedar Mesa: Known for its concentration of Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi) ruins, including cliff dwellings, pottery shards, and rock art panels.
- Comb Ridge: A dramatic sandstone monocline stretching for miles, riddled with archaeological sites and offering stunning vistas.
- Valley of the Gods: A miniature version of Monument Valley, dotted with towering sandstone buttes and mesas.
- Butler Wash: Home to numerous well-preserved Ancestral Puebloan sites, including the iconic House on Fire ruin.
- McCoy Canyon: Another area rich in archaeological resources and natural beauty.
- The Bears Ears Buttes: The two iconic buttes that give the monument its name, sacred landmarks for the tribes and visible from miles around.
The initial map also acknowledged existing rights and uses within the monument, including grazing permits and mineral rights. It emphasized that the monument’s designation was intended to protect these resources while allowing for responsible use and traditional practices.
A Controversial Reduction: Trump’s Executive Order and its Revised Map
The Obama administration’s proclamation was immediately met with resistance from some Utah politicians and local residents who argued that it was an overreach of federal power and would hinder economic development. This opposition culminated in President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order in December 2017, which significantly reduced the size of Bears Ears National Monument by approximately 85%.
This executive order was accompanied by a revised map, dramatically altering the landscape of protection. The original monument was split into two smaller, non-contiguous units:
- Shash Jáa National Monument: Encompassing approximately 125,000 acres, centered around the Bears Ears Buttes.
- Indian Creek National Monument: Encompassing approximately 86,000 acres, focused on the climbing area around Indian Creek.
The revised map essentially carved out the most archaeologically rich and culturally significant areas, leaving vast swathes of the original monument unprotected and vulnerable to potential development, including mining and energy extraction. The reduction effectively removed protection from vast areas of Cedar Mesa, Comb Ridge, and Valley of the Gods, among others.
The Legal Battle and Ongoing Uncertainty: The Maps in Court
Trump’s reduction of Bears Ears was immediately challenged in court by a coalition of tribes, environmental groups, and outdoor recreation companies. The plaintiffs argued that the president’s action violated the Antiquities Act of 1906, which grants the president the power to designate national monuments but does not explicitly authorize the president to reduce or revoke them.
The legal battle over Bears Ears has been protracted and complex. The courts have yet to issue a final ruling on the legality of the reduction, leaving the fate of the monument in a state of legal limbo. Throughout the legal proceedings, both the original map and the revised map have served as crucial pieces of evidence, visually demonstrating the stark contrast between the Obama administration’s vision for protecting the landscape and the Trump administration’s decision to shrink it.
Biden’s Restoration: A Return to the Original Map, but the Fight Continues
In October 2021, President Joe Biden signed a proclamation restoring Bears Ears National Monument to its original 1.36 million-acre size. This action, while celebrated by tribal nations and conservation groups, was met with renewed opposition from Utah politicians and some local residents.
Biden’s proclamation effectively reinstated the original map created under President Obama, once again extending protection to the vast array of cultural and natural resources within the monument’s boundaries. However, the legal challenges to Trump’s reduction are still ongoing, and the possibility of future challenges to Biden’s restoration remains a significant concern.
Beyond Boundaries: The Map as a Symbol of Cultural Significance
The Bears Ears National Monument map is more than just a representation of geographical boundaries; it is a powerful symbol of the cultural significance of the landscape to the five tribes who advocated for its protection. For these tribes, Bears Ears is not just a place of scenic beauty; it is a living landscape imbued with spiritual meaning, historical connection, and ancestral ties.
The map represents their efforts to protect their cultural heritage, their sacred sites, and their traditional way of life. The map also signifies their desire to have a greater voice in the management of public lands that are of vital importance to their cultural identity.
The Challenges of Management: Navigating Competing Interests
Even with the monument restored to its original size, the challenges of managing Bears Ears National Monument remain significant. The monument is a complex landscape with a diverse range of stakeholders, including tribal nations, ranchers, recreation enthusiasts, and energy companies.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, the federal agencies responsible for managing the monument, must navigate these competing interests while ensuring the protection of the monument’s cultural and natural resources. This requires a collaborative approach that incorporates the traditional knowledge of the tribes and engages with all stakeholders in a meaningful way.
The Future of Bears Ears: Collaboration, Co-Management, and Continued Vigilance
The future of Bears Ears National Monument hinges on the ability of stakeholders to work together to develop a sustainable management plan that respects the cultural significance of the landscape, protects its natural resources, and allows for responsible use.
A key aspect of this future will be co-management with the five tribal nations. This involves sharing decision-making power with the tribes and incorporating their traditional knowledge into all aspects of management, from resource protection to visitor management.
Furthermore, continued vigilance is essential to ensure that the monument remains protected from future threats. This includes monitoring potential development projects, advocating for strong enforcement of environmental regulations, and educating the public about the importance of Bears Ears.
Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of the Bears Ears Map
The Bears Ears National Monument map is a dynamic document, reflecting the shifting political landscape and the ongoing struggle to balance conservation with development. It is a visual reminder of the power of advocacy, the importance of cultural preservation, and the enduring challenges of land management in the American West.
Understanding the history and significance of the Bears Ears National Monument map is crucial for appreciating the complexities of this iconic landscape and for engaging in the ongoing debate about its future. As the legal battles continue and the management plan evolves, the map will undoubtedly remain a central point of reference, guiding the efforts to protect this precious cultural and natural treasure for generations to come. The map, in essence, is a living document, constantly being rewritten with the ink of political decisions, legal challenges, and the enduring spirit of the land itself.
