ETCHED into the sandstone of “Newspaper Rock” in Gold Butte, Nevada—an area of vividly coloured desert punctuated by Joshua trees and sublime rock formations—are more than 650 depictions of tortoises, feet and cradleboards chiselled by native Americans as long as 2,000 years ago. On December 28th, Barack Obama designated Gold Butte as a national monument, using the Antiquities Act of 1906. The same day he also granted the same status to Bears Ears in south-eastern Utah. During his eight years as president, Mr Obama has designated 553m acres as national monuments—more than twice as much as any other president.

Gold Butte, where he set aside 300,000 acres of Nevada desert, and Bears Ears, where he protected 1.35m acres surrounding twin buttes that jut upwards from the landscape like ears from a bear’s head, are the final additions. The celebrations and uproar sparked by the new monument designations are a proxy for a long-running debate over federal land, which makes up more than half the territory of the 13 states west of Texas. During the 1970s and 1980s, Sagebrush Rebels, named after the sagebrush steppe that covers much of the rural West, fought for increased local control of public lands, if not the outright transfer of them to states. The fracking booms enjoyed by other states rich in wide-open spaces have given fresh impetus to those who dream that the desert West might be a gold mine, if only the feds would get out of the way.

The recognition of Bears Ears as a national monument is particularly controversial. The most strident calls for its protection came from a coalition of five native American tribes for whom the area is sacred. The tribes have occupied the land for centuries—many Navajos sought refuge there to avoid the guns of Kit Carson, an American soldier and frontiersman, and forced relocation by federal government in the 1860s. The area remains rich in stone carvings and ruins of Navajo dwellings. “The way that we live is finally being acknowledged,” says Jonah Yellowman, a Navajo spiritual leader, at his home overlooking the buttes of Monument Valley. Other Utahns are less excited. Tim Young, a pharmacist and the mayor of Monticello, a town of 2,000 that abuts Bears Ears, has adorned his pharmacy’s windows with stickers that read “NO MONUMENT” inside the outline of a black bear. He is not against a monument in general but he says that the size—nearly twice that of Utah’s five national parks combined—is a prime example of federal overreach. He has explored the area at length on his dirt bike and says that while there are certainly bits worthy of protection, some of the new national monument land is “just sand and rock”. He adds: “Whoever says otherwise hasn’t visited.”

The designations might not stick. A president has not rescinded a previous president’s monument designation since the Antiquities Act was introduced. An attorney-general’s opinion from 1938 suggests doing so might be legally thorny. But no law clearly prohibits such an action. Mr Trump has vowed to reverse all of his predecessor’s executive orders on his first day in office; Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop, two of Utah’s congressmen, hope that includes Mr Obama’s “midnight” monument proclamations.

The two collaborated on legislation last year that aimed to balance conservation and development in the Bears Ears area. (The bill failed to pass before Congress adjourned for the winter holidays.) “The president elected to do what the radical environmentalists wanted him to do without taking into consideration economic development, energy development and all the things that should have been taken into consideration,” Mr Chaffetz complains. If Mr Trump does not reverse it, he and Mr Bishop plan to push for a legislative reversal. The transfer of federal lands to state hands was included in the Republican Party’s platform at last July’s convention. Congressional rules passed on January 3rd, the first day of the House’s new session, included a provision drawn up by Mr Bishop that will make such transfers easier by assuming they would have no impact on the federal budget.

Those who think the federal government should remain in charge fear state ownership would result in reduced public access for activities such as hiking, hunting and fishing, or that land would be flogged to private buyers. It is expensive and complicated to manage; federal-land advocates worry that states might acquire land only to be forced to sell it to balance their budgets. A report by the Wilderness Society, an advocacy group, reveals that Idaho has sold 40% of its land since statehood. A poll by the Colorado College State of the Rockies Project suggests most westerners oppose transferring control of public lands to the states.

Mr Trump’s past statements and cabinet selections suggest that even if he sides with Mr Bishop when it comes to Bears Ears, he might resist a push to give states control of public lands. His pick for interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, stepped down from his position as a Republican convention delegate last year because he disagreed with the position on federal-land transfers. In a conversation with Field & Stream magazine last January, Mr Trump said: “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do…Are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”