In response to “Disappointed with vocal locals in Bluff” (Letters, Journal, July 28): I’d be disappointed if locals hadn’t been vocal in a meeting intended to gather local input regarding something important to their livelihood, heritage and for local Native Americans their lands spiritual well-being.
I met both pro- and anti-monument people, stood with them in 105-degree heat and we all booed and cheered alternately. To imply that only those against the monument booed is disingenuous.
When Navajo President Russell Begaye spoke he was loudly booed by members of his tribe who feel like the coalition hasn’t listened to them. However, I could hear every speech and felt that for approximately 1,000 people to meet at a 500-seat building regarding a hot issue, everyone was well-behaved.
The debated land is already public – open to anyone who wishes to visit. What locals don’t want is to risk increased vandalism. Statistics of current monuments tell us that vandalism increases after designation.
Are you asking how does this affect me - I live miles away? If a president can single-handedly declare a 1.9 million-acre monument in Utah, he’ll move on through Colorado. According to the Department of Agriculture, Colorado is the fourth largest exporter of cattle in the U.S. History shows us that grazing permits are significantly reduced in national monuments. According to the Bureau of Land Management, 1,500 Colorado ranchers currently have grazing permits. If you want to help protect a western, outdoor, rural way of life and Native American heritage please get involved – go to savebearsears.com.
Jennifer Johnson
Springville, Utah
