In their letter, the tea partiers recommend rescission of monument designations for Bears Ears, Berryessa Snow Mountain, Cascade Siskiyou, Grand Canyon-Parashant, Grand Staircase-Escalante, Ironwood Forest, Katahdin Woods and Waters, Sonoran Desert, Vermillion Cliffs, and Northeast Canyons and Seamounts. They also seek to greatly shrink other monuments. For example, they recommend reducing the Basin and Range National Monument in southeastern Nevada from 704,000 acres to “approximately 2,500 acres.”

Environmental advocates have pointed out that the downsizing or rescission of Bears Ears and other national monuments that Zinke appears likely to propose in his final report will collide with court precedent and the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976. That law restricts the secretary’s authority to reduce the size of monuments or rescind them, putting such decisions in the hands of Congress but leaving open the possibility the president can also downsize them. A lack of clarity regarding presidential authority in the matter of reducing acreage will therefore be a matter for the courts.

At the Western Caucus website, a headline on the press release detailing the tea partiers’ letter to Zinke called it “thoughtful.” Here’s the kind of thought that appears in it:

“It speaks volumes that of the 27 monuments and 773.8 million acres currently under review, 14 monuments and more than 553.4 million acres were designated by the Obama Administration,” said Chairman [Paul] Gosar [of Arizona]. “With the stroke of a pen and the blind support of out-of-state extremist groups foaming at the mouth to lock up lands to serve their own agenda, President Obama trampled the will of the people and ignored the wisdom of local stakeholders. I am pleased to have been joined by my colleagues in sending this letter that helps give a voice to those who were often silenced over the last 20 years and provide helpful insight to Secretary Zinke as he conducts his review.” [...] “The Obama Administration abused the Antiquities Act more than any President in our nation’s history. In California and in other western states, federal land grabs have infringed on private property, made it more difficult for the federal government to manage the land, and decreased public access. I fully support the review of these monument designations by the Department of Interior to determine where adjustment is necessary – such as the Cascade Siskiyou Monument, which was expanded against the wishes of every county in the region. Eventually, we must reform the Antiquities act altogether to ensure that any federal land expansion occurs only with the support of Congress and those who live and work in the area,” said Congressman [Doug] LaMalfa [of California].

Ultimately, what this is all about is no different than when the so-called “Sagebrush Rebellion” began in the mid-’70s. It’s an attempt to transfer federal acreage to the states, which then they may sell outright, or keep public but approve extraction and development projects that change the basic character of the land.

Congresspeople and others who make the argument typically call for giving great swaths of land “back” to the states. In fact, it was never theirs to begin with, and no promises were made when they became states to transfer federal land to them. At the front of the queue if any decision were made to “return” the land would be the Native peoples who had it stolen from them in the first place—mostly at actual or implicit gunpoint.

••• •••

Do you want your voice heard on this matter? Click on this link to the federal government website where you can comment on the anti-national monuments order. Deadline, Monday, July 10.